感知压力量表(PSS)-10心理测量分析非英文版本的系统回顾。

IF 2.5 Q2 NURSING
SAGE Open Nursing Pub Date : 2025-09-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23779608251377287
Razel B Milo, Arlin Ramira, Sandra Peppard, María Luisa B Ramira, Roxane Brown, Kathleen Soon, María Fontimayor, Jaden B Milo, Patricia Calero
{"title":"感知压力量表(PSS)-10心理测量分析非英文版本的系统回顾。","authors":"Razel B Milo, Arlin Ramira, Sandra Peppard, María Luisa B Ramira, Roxane Brown, Kathleen Soon, María Fontimayor, Jaden B Milo, Patricia Calero","doi":"10.1177/23779608251377287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS-10) is a cornerstone in measuring stress. Despite the solid psychometric properties of some translated versions of the PSS-10 and their successful application in various groups, a review of several studies revealed a shortcoming in the use of non-standardized methodology.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to systematically review the psychometric properties of the non-English versions of the PSS-10.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The investigators identified 20 quantitative articles from various databases, including PubMed, PsycINFO, OVID, and CINAHL, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Each article had undergone acomprehensive validity and reliability evaluation using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Internal consistency was adequate in 11 studies (α ≥ 0.8), acceptable in eight (α ≥ 0.7), and questionable in one (α ≥ 0.6). All analyzed studies were observational. Most studies employed a cross-sectional design (<i>n</i> = 17) with a longitudinal component (test-retest <i>n</i> = 11). Some studies employed retrospective (<i>n</i> = 1) and prospective cohort (<i>n</i> = 2) designs. The two-factor construct validity was confirmed by exploratory (<i>n</i> = 11) and confirmatory factor analysis (<i>n</i> = 7).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The focus was on the homogeneity of the items within the translated scale of different languages. However, the reported internal consistency and construct validity of the translated PSS-10 varied based on participant characteristics, language, culture, disease population, gender, and sample size.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A standardized approach to psychometric methodology would enable other researchers to develop the reliability and the validity of the translated PSS-10 across diverse populations and cultures in a defined and accurate manner.</p>","PeriodicalId":43312,"journal":{"name":"SAGE Open Nursing","volume":"11 ","pages":"23779608251377287"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12446815/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review of the Non-English Versions of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)-10 Psychometric Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Razel B Milo, Arlin Ramira, Sandra Peppard, María Luisa B Ramira, Roxane Brown, Kathleen Soon, María Fontimayor, Jaden B Milo, Patricia Calero\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23779608251377287\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS-10) is a cornerstone in measuring stress. Despite the solid psychometric properties of some translated versions of the PSS-10 and their successful application in various groups, a review of several studies revealed a shortcoming in the use of non-standardized methodology.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to systematically review the psychometric properties of the non-English versions of the PSS-10.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The investigators identified 20 quantitative articles from various databases, including PubMed, PsycINFO, OVID, and CINAHL, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Each article had undergone acomprehensive validity and reliability evaluation using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Internal consistency was adequate in 11 studies (α ≥ 0.8), acceptable in eight (α ≥ 0.7), and questionable in one (α ≥ 0.6). All analyzed studies were observational. Most studies employed a cross-sectional design (<i>n</i> = 17) with a longitudinal component (test-retest <i>n</i> = 11). Some studies employed retrospective (<i>n</i> = 1) and prospective cohort (<i>n</i> = 2) designs. The two-factor construct validity was confirmed by exploratory (<i>n</i> = 11) and confirmatory factor analysis (<i>n</i> = 7).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The focus was on the homogeneity of the items within the translated scale of different languages. However, the reported internal consistency and construct validity of the translated PSS-10 varied based on participant characteristics, language, culture, disease population, gender, and sample size.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A standardized approach to psychometric methodology would enable other researchers to develop the reliability and the validity of the translated PSS-10 across diverse populations and cultures in a defined and accurate manner.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43312,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"SAGE Open Nursing\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"23779608251377287\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12446815/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"SAGE Open Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23779608251377287\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SAGE Open Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23779608251377287","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

感知压力量表-10 (PSS-10)是测量压力的基础。尽管一些翻译版本的PSS-10具有坚实的心理测量特性,并在不同群体中成功应用,但对几项研究的回顾揭示了使用非标准化方法的缺点。目的:对非英文版PSS-10量表的心理测量特性进行系统评价。方法:研究者从PubMed、PsycINFO、OVID和CINAHL等不同数据库中选取了20篇定量文章,以系统评价和meta分析的首选报告项目为指导。每篇文章都经过了全面的效度和信度评估,使用了乔安娜布里格斯研究所的关键评估工具和分级的建议评估,发展和评估。11项研究的内部一致性是足够的(α≥0.8),8项研究是可以接受的(α≥0.7),1项研究是有问题的(α≥0.6)。所有分析的研究都是观察性的。大多数研究采用横向设计(n = 17)和纵向成分(test-retest n = 11)。一些研究采用回顾性(n = 1)和前瞻性队列(n = 2)设计。通过探索性因子分析(n = 11)和验证性因子分析(n = 7)验证双因素结构效度。讨论:重点是不同语言翻译量表内项目的同质性。然而,报告的PSS-10翻译的内部一致性和结构效度因参与者特征、语言、文化、疾病人群、性别和样本量而异。结论:标准化的心理测量方法将使其他研究人员能够以明确和准确的方式开发翻译后的PSS-10在不同人群和文化中的信度和效度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A Systematic Review of the Non-English Versions of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)-10 Psychometric Analysis.

A Systematic Review of the Non-English Versions of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)-10 Psychometric Analysis.

A Systematic Review of the Non-English Versions of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)-10 Psychometric Analysis.

A Systematic Review of the Non-English Versions of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)-10 Psychometric Analysis.

Introduction: The Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS-10) is a cornerstone in measuring stress. Despite the solid psychometric properties of some translated versions of the PSS-10 and their successful application in various groups, a review of several studies revealed a shortcoming in the use of non-standardized methodology.

Objective: This study aimed to systematically review the psychometric properties of the non-English versions of the PSS-10.

Methods: The investigators identified 20 quantitative articles from various databases, including PubMed, PsycINFO, OVID, and CINAHL, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Each article had undergone acomprehensive validity and reliability evaluation using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Internal consistency was adequate in 11 studies (α ≥ 0.8), acceptable in eight (α ≥ 0.7), and questionable in one (α ≥ 0.6). All analyzed studies were observational. Most studies employed a cross-sectional design (n = 17) with a longitudinal component (test-retest n = 11). Some studies employed retrospective (n = 1) and prospective cohort (n = 2) designs. The two-factor construct validity was confirmed by exploratory (n = 11) and confirmatory factor analysis (n = 7).

Discussion: The focus was on the homogeneity of the items within the translated scale of different languages. However, the reported internal consistency and construct validity of the translated PSS-10 varied based on participant characteristics, language, culture, disease population, gender, and sample size.

Conclusion: A standardized approach to psychometric methodology would enable other researchers to develop the reliability and the validity of the translated PSS-10 across diverse populations and cultures in a defined and accurate manner.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
106
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信