Cited by 30Psychometric Methodologies and TestingDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchHealth Education and Validation

Psychometric properties of the Perceived Stress Scale in a sample of German dementia patients and their caregivers

Open access
Deeken, Friederike, Häusler, Andreas, Nordheim, Johanna, Rapp, Michael, Knoll, Nina, Rieckmann, Nina·2018·International Psychogeriatrics

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1017/s1041610217001387

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 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
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