Pedro H Ribeiro Santiago1, Tine Nielsen2, Lisa Gaye Smithers3, Rachel Roberts4, Lisa Jamieson5. 1. Adelaide Dental School, The University of Adelaide, AHMS Building, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia. pedro.ribeirosantiago@adelaide.edu.au. 2. Department of Psychology, The University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. 4. School of Psychology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. 5. Adelaide Dental School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Australia, the stress levels have increased over the years, impacting on the physical and mental health of the general population. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the PSS-14 in an Australian population. METHODS: The PSS-14 was applied to a large national sample comprising 3857 Australians in the population-based cross-sectional study Australia's National Survey of Adult Oral Health 2004-2006. The psychometric properties analyzed with the Rasch model and Graphical Log-linear Rasch models were: model fit, item fit, local dependence, differential item functioning, unidimensionality, reliability, targeting and criterion validity. RESULTS: The PSS-14 did not fit the pure RM (χ2 (55) = 3828.3, p = < 0.001) and the unidimensionality of the whole scale was rejected (p = < 0.001). The Perceived Stress (χ2 (27) = 1409.7, p = < 0.001) and Perceived Control (χ2 (27) = 713.4, p = < 0.001) subscales did not fit the pure RM. After the deletion of two items, the Perceived Stress subscale (χ2 (96) = 94.4, p = 0.440) fitted a GLLRM, while the Perceived Control scale (χ2 (55) = 62.50, p = 0.224) fitted a GLLRM after the exclusion of four misfitting items. CONCLUSIONS: The Perceived Stress subscale displayed adequate psychometric properties after the deletion of two items; however, the majority of problems centered around the Perceived Control subscale. The presence of differential item functioning among four items indicates that adjustment of total scores is required to avoid measurement bias. Recommendations for future applications in Australia are provided.
BACKGROUND: In Australia, the stress levels have increased over the years, impacting on the physical and mental health of the general population. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the PSS-14 in an Australian population. METHODS: The PSS-14 was applied to a large national sample comprising 3857 Australians in the population-based cross-sectional study Australia's National Survey of Adult Oral Health 2004-2006. The psychometric properties analyzed with the Rasch model and Graphical Log-linear Rasch models were: model fit, item fit, local dependence, differential item functioning, unidimensionality, reliability, targeting and criterion validity. RESULTS: The PSS-14 did not fit the pure RM (χ2 (55) = 3828.3, p = < 0.001) and the unidimensionality of the whole scale was rejected (p = < 0.001). The Perceived Stress (χ2 (27) = 1409.7, p = < 0.001) and Perceived Control (χ2 (27) = 713.4, p = < 0.001) subscales did not fit the pure RM. After the deletion of two items, the Perceived Stress subscale (χ2 (96) = 94.4, p = 0.440) fitted a GLLRM, while the Perceived Control scale (χ2 (55) = 62.50, p = 0.224) fitted a GLLRM after the exclusion of four misfitting items. CONCLUSIONS: The Perceived Stress subscale displayed adequate psychometric properties after the deletion of two items; however, the majority of problems centered around the Perceived Control subscale. The presence of differential item functioning among four items indicates that adjustment of total scores is required to avoid measurement bias. Recommendations for future applications in Australia are provided.
Authors: Pedro Henrique Ribeiro Santiago; Adrian Quintero; Dandara Haag; Rachel Roberts; Lisa Smithers; Lisa Jamieson Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2021-02-26
Authors: Clare Whitton; Janelle D Healy; Clare E Collins; Barbara Mullan; Megan E Rollo; Satvinder S Dhaliwal; Richard Norman; Carol J Boushey; Edward J Delp; Fengqing Zhu; Tracy A McCaffrey; Sharon I Kirkpatrick; Paul Atyeo; Syed Aqif Mukhtar; Janine L Wright; César Ramos-García; Christina M Pollard; Deborah A Kerr Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2021-12-16
Authors: Desiree R Azizoddin; Noelia Kvaternik; Meghan Beck; Guohai Zhou; Mohammad Adrian Hasdianda; Natasha Jones; Lily Johnsky; Dana Im; Peter R Chai; Edward W Boyer Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2021-12-29
Authors: Kathina Ali; Matthew Iasiello; Joep van Agteren; Teri Mavrangelos; Michael Kyrios; Daniel B Fassnacht Journal: Global Health Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 4.185
Authors: Laura Katus; Sarah Foley; Aja L Murray; Bao-Yen Luong-Thanh; Diana Taut; Adriana Baban; Bernadette Madrid; Asvini D Fernando; Siham Sikander; Catherine L Ward; Joseph Osafo; Marguerite Marlow; Stefani Du Toit; Susan Walker; Thang Van Vo; Pasco Fearon; Sara Valdebenito; Manuel P Eisner; Claire Hughes Journal: Arch Womens Ment Health Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 4.405
Authors: Eleanor Jane Parker; Dandara Gabriela Haag; Andrew John Spencer; Kaye Roberts-Thomson; Lisa Marie Jamieson Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2022-10-17 Impact factor: 3.747