Psychometric properties of the Perceived Stress Scale in a sample of German dementia patients and their caregivers
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to investigate the psychometric characteristics of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) in a sample of dementia patients and their spousal caregivers. METHODS: We investigated the reliability and validity of the 14-item PSS in a sample of 80 couples, each including one spouse who had been diagnosed with mild to moderate dementia (mean age 75.55, SD = 5.85, 38.7% female) and one spousal caregiver (mean age 73.06, SD = 6.75, 61.3% female). We also examined the factor structure and sensitivity of the scale with regard to gender differences. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis of the PSS revealed a two-factor solution for the scale; the first factor reflected general stress while the second factor consisted of items reflecting the perceived ability to cope with stressors. A confirmatory factor analysis verified that the data were a better fit for the two-factor model than a one-factor model. The two factors of the PSS showed good reliability for patients as well as for caregivers ranging between α = 0.73 and α = 0.82. Perceived stress was significantly positively correlated with depressive symptomatology in both caregivers and patients. Mean PSS scores did not significantly differ between male and female patients nor did they differ between male and female caregivers. CONCLUSION: The present data indicate that the PSS provides a reliable and valid measure of perceived stress in dementia patients and their caregivers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The PSS has shown strong psychometric properties in caregiving and dementia-related studies.
“The PSS has shown strong psychometric properties in caregiving and dementia-related studies (Deeken et al., 2018; Peavy et al., 2022).”
From Mindfulness and rumination: stress pathways for caregivers of persons living with dementia. (2026) · cites this paper as Deeken et al., 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 30
- Authors
- Deeken, F., Häusler, A., Nordheim, J., Rapp, M., Knoll, N., & Rieckmann, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Potsdam (DE)
- Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
- Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Deeken, Friederike
- Venue
- International Psychogeriatrics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-47
- ISSN
- 1041-6102 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2737682153
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 1.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Psychogeriatrics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- publish.UP (University of Potsdam) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01ET1001A)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- Perceived Stress Scale, perceived stress, dementia, spousal caregivers, psychometric properties, scale reliability, scale validity, factor structure, stress coping, depressive symptoms, gender differences, couples
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Aged, Dementia, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Perception, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Stress, Psychological, Reproducibility of Results, Caregivers
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review