Cited by 104Psychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsMedicine, History, and PhilosophyPsychological Testing and Assessment

A simple instrument for assessing stress in clinical practice

Open access
Sonino, N, Fava, G A·1998·Postgraduate Medical Journal

Abstract

Summary: Methods to assess the role of stress factors in patients with medical conditions are often rather complex, require specific training, and are difficult to use in clinical practice. We attempted to develop a short index tailored to a busy clinical setting, which would be easy to use while providing adequate individual information. This index (Psychosocial Index) was largely derived from well-established instruments, such as Kellner's Screening List for Psychosocial Problems. In addition, on the basis of the patient's self-report of items, the clinician is asked to rate four dimensions of the patient's life: stress, wellbeing, psychological distress, and illness behaviour. The questionnaires of 34 female patients with functional medical disorders were first rated by an internist and afterwards, blindly, by a psychiatrist. Agreement between the two raters was excellent, as measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient. It is hoped that this Psychosocial Index may provide a new tool for psychosomatic research and practice.

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 · 10.1136/pgmj.74.873.408

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • A shorter version, the 6-item part of the PsychoSocial Index, was found to be a sensitive measure of well-being, yet it does not allow differentiation of the various dimensions.

    “A shorter version, the 6-item part of the PsychoSocial Index 50,51 , has been developed and submitted to clinimetric validation: it was found to be a sensitive measure of well-being, yet it does not allow differentiation of the various dimensions.”

    From The pursuit of euthymia (2020) · cites this paper as [50]

    The INSTRUMENT section (page unavailable) identifies questions 31–36 as six well-being items within the 55-item Psychosocial Index. It does not report validation of those items as a shorter standalone measure, find them sensitive to well-being, or assess whether they distinguish its dimensions. The Results concern inter-rater agreement for the full index’s observer-rated dimensions. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Psychosocial Index showed good psychometric properties.

    “it showed good psychometric properties [49]”

    From Protocol and methods for testing the efficacy of well-being therapy in chronic migraine patients: a randomized controlled trial. (2018) · cites this paper as [49]

    The Results report excellent inter-rater concordance for the Psychosocial Index’s four observer-rated dimensions. The Validation Design and Statistical Methods section says this was the reliability assessment of the novel observer-rated part; it does not establish good psychometric properties for the index more broadly. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

3 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Lipowski ZJ. Somatization. Psychother Psychosom 1987;47:160-7.
  2. Wagner BM. Major and daily stress and psychopathology. Stress Med 1990;6:217-66.
  3. Peacock EJ, Wong PTP. The stress appraisal measure (SAM). Stress Med 1990;6:227-36.
  4. Endler NS, Parker JDA. Stress and anxiety. Stress Med 1990; 6:243-8.
  5. Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Kroenke K, et al. Utility of a new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care. JAMA 1994;272:1749-56.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sonino, N., & Fava, G. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Venue
Postgraduate Medical Journal
Published
1998-07-01
Volume
74
Issue
873
Pages
408-410
ISSN
  • 0032-5473 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0756
OpenAlex
W2124306688
Cited by
104
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Postgraduate Medical Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Medicine, History, and Philosophy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
psychological distress, well-being, illness behavior, rater agreement, psychosomatic medicine, self-report questionnaire
MeSH terms
Adult, Data Collection, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Female, Humans, Psychosomatic Medicine, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological

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