| Popis: |
Dan Wu,1 Tingzhong Yang,2 Fabian Herold,3 Daniel L Hall,4,5 Notger Mueller,3 Albert Yeung,4,6 Arthur F Kramer,7,8 Tianyou Guo,1 Liye Zou1 1Body-Brian-Mind Laboratory, School of Psychology/The Shenzhen Humanities & Social Sciences Key Research Bases of the Center for Mental Health, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, 518060, People’s Republic of China; 2Women’s Hospital/Center for Tobacco Control Research, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310058, People’s Republic of China; 3Research Group Degenerative and Chronic Diseases, Movement, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, 14476, Germany; 4Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02115, USA; 5Mongan Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA; 6Depression Clinical and Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA; 7Beckman Institute, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA; 8Center for Cognitive & Brain Health, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115, USACorrespondence: Tianyou Guo, Body-Brian-Mind Laboratory, School of Psychology/The Shenzhen Humanities & Social Sciences Key Research Bases of the Center for Mental Health, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518060, People’s Republic of China, Email gtyou168@126.comPurpose: The objectives of this study were to examine the psychometric properties of the Uncertainty Stress Scale (USS) and to compare the usefulness of two versions of the scale (USS-4 and USS-10) among a large community-based sample of Chinese adults.Participants and Methods: The Uncertainty Stress Scale was validated in 904 community residents (mean age: 32.71 ± 10.99; male: 41.7%) through an online survey conducted in February 2020. Psychometric properties of reliability (Cronbach’s alpha), construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis), and criterion validity (correlation and ROC curve analyses) were evaluated using established benchmarks. To validate the USS, we used the Chinese version of the Perceived Stress Scale (CPSS). In addition, sensitivity, specificity, and suitable cutoff values of the two versions of USS were determined.Results: Both versions of the USS had high internal consistency (USS-10: 0.941; USS-4: 0.851). Confirmatory factor analyses supported a one-factor structure for both measures. Both USS-4 and USS-10 scores were significantly positively correlated with CPSS scores, indicating acceptable criterion validity.Conclusion: The findings of the current study confirmed that the psychometric properties of two Chinese versions of USS are acceptable. Furthermore, the 4-item USS was as effective as the 10-item USS for the measurement of uncertainty stress in our community-based sample of Chinese adults suggesting that the USS-4 is a time-efficient alternative to the USS-10 which can be used when the circumstances require a time-efficient instrument (eg, in epidemiological studies with a large test battery).Keywords: Validation, Uncertainty Stress Scale, Community-based Sample |
