Psychometric evaluation of three versions of the Italian Perceived Stress Scale
- 14 Downloads
Stress is measured through the use of tools that allow detection in large samples, and the search effort is directed to validating tools to ensure that they are predictable. The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) is one of the three most commonly used tools to measure perceived stress. The three versions of the PSS have never been evaluated for use with Italian workers. Therefore, the overall aims of this study are to translate and clarify the psychometric properties of the Italian versions, known as IPSS-14, IPSS-10, and IPSS-4 for use with Italian precarious workers. A sample of 649 precarious workers (mean age = 39.6, SD = 10.1) participated in this study, which consisted of 393 males and 256 females. The sample was randomly split into two for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to investigate the PSS structure. The two-factor models for the three Italian versions of PSS showed a better fit than the single-factor models. The reliability was high for IPSS-14 and IPSS-10. The results suggest that the psychometric properties of IPSS-10 are greater than those of IPSS-14 and IPSS-4. Therefore, IPSS-10 can be reliably used to measure perceived stress and is a suitable tool to incorporate the support/intervention programs for Italian precarious workers.
KeywordsItalian Perceived Stress Scale Exploratory factor analysis Confirmatory factor analysis Precarious workers
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Statement of Human Rights
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52(3), 317–332.Google Scholar
- Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (version 7.0) [computer program]. Chicago: SpSS.Google Scholar
- Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
- Brown, T. (2006). CFA with equality constraints, multiple groups, and mean structures. In T. Brown (Ed.), Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (pp. 236–319). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
- Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258.Google Scholar
- Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling: Perspectives on the present and the future. International Journal of Testing, 1(3–4), 327–334.Google Scholar
- Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health: Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology (pp. 31–67). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
- Cook, J., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). A compendium and review of 249 work review measures and their use. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Graham, J. M. (2006). Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability: What they are and how to use them. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(6), 930–944.Google Scholar
- Hadden, W. C., Muntaner, C., Benach, J., Gimeno, D., & Benavides, F. G. (2007). A glossary for the social epidemiology of work organisation: Part 3, terms from the sociology of labour markets. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 61(1), 6–8.Google Scholar
- Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., & Mosher, S. W. (1992). The perceived stress scale: Factor structure and relation to depression symptoms in a psychiatric sample. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 14(3), 247–257.Google Scholar
- Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.Google Scholar
- Istat, S. (2017). Censimento popolazione Istat; 2016.Google Scholar
- Kim, M. H., Kim, C. Y., Park, J. K., & Kawachi, I. (2008). Is precarious employment damaging to self-rated health? Results of propensity score matching methods, using longitudinal data in South Korea. Social Science & Medicine, 67(12), 1982–1994.Google Scholar
- Kline, T. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1994). Stress, appraising, and coping. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Lynch, J., & Kaplan, G. (2000). Socioeconomic position. In L. Berkman & I. Kawachi (Eds.), Social epidemiology (pp. 13–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99.Google Scholar
- Moscone, F., Tosetti, E., & Vittadini, G. (2016). The impact of precarious employment on mental health: The case of Italy. Social Science & Medicine, 158, 86–95.Google Scholar
- Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd edn.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Google Scholar
- Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. (2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 264–282.Google Scholar
- Pbert, L., Doerfler, L. A., & DeCosimo, D. (1992). An evaluation of the perceived stress scale in two clinical populations. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 14(4), 363–375.Google Scholar
- Pedersen, H., Hansen, C. B., & Mahler, S. (2003). Temporary agency work in the European Union, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin, http://www.fr.eurofound.eu.int/pubdocs/2004/104/en/1/ef04104en. pdf.
- Ramírez, A. B., Hernández, B. A. S., & Figueiras, S. C. (2007). Relación estructural entre apoyo familiar, nivel educativo de los padres, características del maestro y desempeño en lengua escrita. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 12(33), 701–729.Google Scholar
- Raubenheimer, J. (2004). An item selection procedure to maximize scale reliability and validity. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30(4), 59–64.Google Scholar
- Roberti, J. W., Harrington, L. N., & Storch, E. A. (2006). Further psychometric support for the 10-item version of the perceived stress scale. Journal of College Counseling, 9(2), 135–147.Google Scholar
- Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.Google Scholar
- Siqueira Reis, R., Ferreira Hino, A. A., & Romélio Rodriguez Añez, C. (2010). Perceived stress scale: Reliability and validity study in Brazil. Journal of Health Psychology, 15(1), 107–114.Google Scholar
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
- Vosko, L. F. (2010). Managing the margins: Gender, citizenship, and the international regulation of precarious employment. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar