Cited by 151Psychometric Methodologies and TestingStudent Stress and CopingStress and Burnout Research

Evaluating the perceived stress scale among UK university students: implications for stress measurement and management

Open access
Denovan, Andrew, Dagnall, Neil, Dhingra, Katie, Grogan, Sarah·2019·Studies in Higher Education

Abstract

University life can be stressful, and accurate measurement of perceived stress is important for research and practice. However, despite widespread use, disagreement persists regarding the latent structure of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), which poses serious consequences for how the measure should be administered. Furthermore, factorial invariance between genders has not been established with the 10-item PSS, though gender differences in perceived stress have been detected. This study examined the factor structure, composite reliability, convergent validity, and gender invariance of the PSS-10 among 524 UK university students. Four distinct factor models (one-factor, correlated two-factor, correlated three-factor, and bifactor) were examined using confirmatory factor analysis. The totality of results supported a bifactor solution. Multi-group analysis established configural, metric, and scalar invariance of this model across gender. This study supports the use of total PSS-10 scores with UK university students and suggests the scale is not significantly affected by gender bias.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03075079.2017.1340445

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Denovan, A., Dagnall, N., Dhingra, K., & Grogan, S.
Affiliations
  • Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
  • Leeds Beckett University (GB)
Corresponding author
Denovan, Andrew
Venue
Studies in Higher Education
Published
2017-06-22
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
120-133
ISSN
  • 0307-5079 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-174X
OpenAlex
W2698362387
Cited by
151
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5
FWCI
6.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Studies in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
  • e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (submittedVersion)
  • Leeds Beckett Repository (Leeds Beckett University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Student Stress and Coping
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
Perceived Stress Scale, PSS-10, perceived stress, university students, factor structure, bifactor model, gender invariance, gender differences, stress measurement, stress management, psychometric validation

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