日常烦恼和慢性压力源:概念和测量问题

Susan E. Hahn, Carlla S. Smith
{"title":"日常烦恼和慢性压力源:概念和测量问题","authors":"Susan E. Hahn, Carlla S. Smith","doi":"10.1002/(SICI)1099-1700(199904)15:2<89::AID-SMI789>3.0.CO;2-O","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Researchers have studied similar stressful events under different construct labels. This study examined three explanations for the overlap: definitional confusion, measurement problems associated with using normative measures to assess stressful events and poor measure development. Two types of stressors, hassles and chronic stressors, were used to examine the overlap issue. A literature review indicated that overlapping definitions of hassles and chronic stressors have been widely used by researchers. Items from traditional work and non-work hassles and chronic stressor measures were categorized by 323 hospital employees as either hassles or chronic stressors. Results revealed that items from traditional hassles measures were not consistently categorized by participants as hassles but were categorized by some as chronic stressors. A similar inconsistent categorization was found for chronic stressors. Results suggest that traditional normative measures of hassles and chronic stressors may be inadequate. Implications of these results for acute stressor measurement are discussed. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.","PeriodicalId":82818,"journal":{"name":"Stress medicine","volume":"48 1","pages":"89-101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"56","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Daily hassles and chronic stressors: conceptual and measurement issues\",\"authors\":\"Susan E. Hahn, Carlla S. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/(SICI)1099-1700(199904)15:2<89::AID-SMI789>3.0.CO;2-O\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Researchers have studied similar stressful events under different construct labels. This study examined three explanations for the overlap: definitional confusion, measurement problems associated with using normative measures to assess stressful events and poor measure development. Two types of stressors, hassles and chronic stressors, were used to examine the overlap issue. A literature review indicated that overlapping definitions of hassles and chronic stressors have been widely used by researchers. Items from traditional work and non-work hassles and chronic stressor measures were categorized by 323 hospital employees as either hassles or chronic stressors. Results revealed that items from traditional hassles measures were not consistently categorized by participants as hassles but were categorized by some as chronic stressors. A similar inconsistent categorization was found for chronic stressors. Results suggest that traditional normative measures of hassles and chronic stressors may be inadequate. Implications of these results for acute stressor measurement are discussed. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stress medicine\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"89-101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"56\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stress medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1700(199904)15:2<89::AID-SMI789>3.0.CO;2-O\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stress medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1700(199904)15:2<89::AID-SMI789>3.0.CO;2-O","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 56

摘要

研究人员在不同的构念标签下研究了类似的压力事件。本研究考察了重叠的三种解释:定义混乱,与使用规范措施评估压力事件相关的测量问题以及不良的测量发展。两种类型的压力源,麻烦和慢性压力源,被用来检查重叠问题。一项文献综述表明,困扰和慢性压力源的定义重叠已被研究者广泛使用。323名医院员工将传统的工作、非工作困扰和慢性压力源测量中的项目分为困扰和慢性压力源。结果显示,传统的烦恼测量项目并没有被参与者一致地归类为烦恼,而是被一些人归类为慢性压力源。在慢性压力源中也发现了类似的不一致分类。结果表明,传统的规范措施的纠纷和慢性应激源可能是不够的。讨论了这些结果对急性应激源测量的意义。版权所有©1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Daily hassles and chronic stressors: conceptual and measurement issues
Researchers have studied similar stressful events under different construct labels. This study examined three explanations for the overlap: definitional confusion, measurement problems associated with using normative measures to assess stressful events and poor measure development. Two types of stressors, hassles and chronic stressors, were used to examine the overlap issue. A literature review indicated that overlapping definitions of hassles and chronic stressors have been widely used by researchers. Items from traditional work and non-work hassles and chronic stressor measures were categorized by 323 hospital employees as either hassles or chronic stressors. Results revealed that items from traditional hassles measures were not consistently categorized by participants as hassles but were categorized by some as chronic stressors. A similar inconsistent categorization was found for chronic stressors. Results suggest that traditional normative measures of hassles and chronic stressors may be inadequate. Implications of these results for acute stressor measurement are discussed. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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