CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 198Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumPregnancy-related medical researchPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring the ups and downs of pregnancy stress

DiPietro, JA, Ghera, MM, Costigan, K, Hawkins, M·2004·Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology
DOI 10.1080/01674820400017830
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite substantial interest in the effects of stress on pregnancy, few instruments are available to measure pregnancy-specific stressors. Moreover, research has typically focused on the distressing, negative aspects of pregnancy. This report examines the reliability and validity of the Pregnancy Experience Scale (PES), a 41-item scale that measures pregnancy-specific daily hassles and uplifts. The PES was administered to two cohorts of low risk women at 24, 30, and 36 weeks (n = 52) or 32 and 38 weeks (n = 137). Women perceived their pregnancies to be significantly more intensely and frequently uplifting than hassling. Internal scale reliability was high (alpha = 0.91 to 0.95). Frequency and intensity scores for hassles and uplifts were stable over time (r's = 0.56 to 0.83) and patterns of convergent and discriminant validity emerged between the PES and existing measures of general affective intensity, daily stressors, depressive symptoms, and anxiety. These results indicate that (1) failure to measure pregnancy-specific stress will underestimate the degree to which pregnant women experience distress and (2) measurement of only the negative aspects of pregnancy will overestimate distress and fail to portray the degree to which women are psychologically elevated by their pregnancies. Measurement of hassles relative to uplifts may provide the most balanced assessment of pregnancy appraisal.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01674820400017830

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. DiPietro JA, 1996, Child Dev, 67, 2553, 10.2307/1131640 · DOI
  2. Schaefer C, Ann Behav Med
  3. Mutale T, 1991, Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 122, 47
  4. Kofman O., 2002, Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 26, 457
  5. Orr ST, 1992, J Dev Behav Pediatr, 13, 343
  6. Levin J., 1991, J Health Soc Behav, 32, 368
  7. Thompson L, 1997, J Reprod Infant Psychol, 271
  8. Ayers S., 2001, J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol, 22, 12
  9. Fredrickson B., 2001, Am Psychol, 56, 281, 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Seligman M., The Science of Optimism and Hope, 415
  11. Lobel M, 2000, Health Psychol, 19, 544, 10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.544 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 198

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
DiPietro, J., Ghera, M., Costigan, K., & Hawkins, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2004-01
Volume
25
Issue
3-4
Pages
189-201
ISSN
  • 0167-482X (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-8942
DOI
10.1080/01674820400017830
OpenAlex
W2123199847
Cited by
198
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 7
FWCI
2.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD 27592, R01HD027592)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy-related medical research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
pregnancy stress, daily hassles, uplift, scale reliability, scale validity, depressive symptoms, anxiety, low-risk pregnant women
MeSH terms
Adult, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Psychology, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological, Reproducibility of Results, Cohort Studies

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