| Literature DB >> 33323110 |
K Petrowski1,2, E Braehler3, B Schmalbach4, A Hinz5, C Bastianon4, T Ritz6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although a variety of instruments are available that capture stress experience, the assessment of chronic stress has been hindered by the lack of economical screening instruments. Recently, an English-language version of the Trier Inventory for Chronic Stress (TICS-EN) consisting of 57 items according to a systemic-requirement-resource model of health in nine subdomains of the chronic stress experience has been introduced.Entities:
Keywords: Chronic stress; Factor analysis; Measurement invariance; Screening questionnaire; Trier inventory for chronic stress
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33323110 PMCID: PMC7739474 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-01156-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol ISSN: 1471-2288 Impact factor: 4.615
Sample description
| Sample 1 ( | Sample 2 ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | TICS | % | TICS | |||
| Gender | M (SD) | M (SD) | ||||
| Female | 366 | 73.1 | 2.47 (0.72) | 96 | 52.2 | 2.44 (0.85) |
| Male | 118 | 23.6 | 2.54 (0.70) | 88 | 47.8 | 2.46 (0.89) |
| Missing | 17 | 3.4 | 2.05 (0.84) | |||
| Age (in years) | ||||||
| ≤ 20 | 366 | 73.1 | 2.50 (0.70) | 2 | 1.1 | 3.44 (0.31) |
| 21–25 | 116 | 23.2 | 2.42 (0.79) | 16 | 8.7 | 2.78 (0.79) |
| ≥ 26 | 19 | 3.8 | 2.37 (0.72) | 166 | 90.2 | 2.41 (0.87) |
| Ethnicity | ||||||
| White | 391 | 78.0 | 2.49 (0.67) | 148 | 80.4 | 2.35 (0.81) |
| Black or African American | 22 | 4.4 | 2.58 (0.69) | 16 | 8.7 | 2.26 (0.81) |
| Asian or Pacific Islander | 25 | 5.0 | 2.28 (0.81) | 6 | 3.3 | 2.41 (0.87) |
| Hispanic or Latino | 6 | 1.2 | 2.74 (0.44) | 13 | 7.1 | 2.94 (0.98) |
| Multi-ethnic | 6 | 1.2 | 3.67 (0.78) | 3 | 1.6 | 2.70 (0.39) |
| Other | 25 | 5.0 | 2.12 (0.97) | |||
| Missing | 26 | 5.2 | 2.34 (0.91) | 2 | 1.1 | 2.67 (0.63) |
Note. TICS Trier Inventory for Chronic Stress
Descriptive statistics for the TICS-9 (Sample 1)
| Item | Skewness | Excessive Kurtosis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.838 | 0.910 | 0.949 | 0.467 | .537 | 0.0117 | 0.0116 |
| 2 | 2.319 | 1.003 | 0.414 | −0.306 | .650 | −0.0559 | 0.0356 |
| 3 | 3.275 | 1.066 | −0.318 | −0.358 | .543 | 0.1627 | 0.1067 |
| 4 | 2.385 | 1.061 | 0.475 | −0.444 | .674 | 0.0288 | 0.0066 |
| 5 | 2.218 | 1.042 | 0.492 | −0.504 | .651 | 0.0082 | 0.0040 |
| 6 | 2.154 | 0.993 | 0.512 | −0.510 | .608 | −0.0222 | 0.0029 |
| 7 | 2.669 | 1.184 | 0.236 | −0.787 | .594 | 0.1162 | 0.0771 |
| 8 | 2.375 | 1.001 | 0.406 | −0.286 | .573 | −0.0276 | 0.0221 |
| 9 | 3.024 | 1.075 | −0.193 | −0.508 | .580 | 0.0394 | 0.0062 |
Note. r Corrected item-total correlation, CDIF Compensatory differential item functioning, NCDIF Non-compensatory differential item functioning
Fig. 1Boxplots of the TICS-9 item distributions. Diamonds represent the item score means
Model fit in both samples
| χ2 ( | χ2/ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample 1 | 116.878 (27) | < .001 | 4.329 | .988 | .984 | .082 [.067; .097] | .060 |
| Sample 2 | 40.614 (27) | .045 | 1.504 | .997 | .995 | .073 [.011; .117] | .057 |
Fig. 2Gender-specific test characteristic curves. The scale range differs from the empirical distribution because items were rescaled to minima of 0 and groups of insufficient size were collapsed
Analysis of measurement invariance across gender (Sample 1)
| Model | χ2 ( | Δχ2 | Δ | Δ | Δ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Configural inv. | 327.328 (56) | .956 | .889 | |||||
| Male | 77.251 (28) | .966 | .915 | |||||
| Female | 250.077 (28) | .952 | .881 | |||||
| Threshold inv. | 340.100 (65) | 12.772 | 9 | .173 | .955 | .001 | .888 | .001 |
| Loading inv. | 346.736 (72) | 6.636 | 7 | .468 | .955 | .000 | .888 | .000 |
| Intercept inv. | 378.449 (80) | 31.713 | 8 | < .001 | .951 | .004 | .879 | .009 |