CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 121Psychometric Methodologies and TestingStress and Burnout ResearchHealth and Well-being Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validation of the 10-item Chinese perceived stress scale in elderly service workers: one-factor versus two-factor structure

Open access
Ng, Siu-man·2013·BMC Psychology
DOI 10.1186/2050-7283-1-9PMC PMC4269992
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite its popularity, the psychometric properties of the 10-item Chinese Perceived Stress Scale (CPSS-10) in working adults are yet to be evaluated. METHODS: This study examined CPSS-10 in elderly service workers through a questionnaire survey. The sample was randomly split into two for exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). RESULTS: A high response rate (93%) was achieved, resulting in 992 completed questionnaires. EFA with the first split sample favored a two-factor over a one-factor solution. The second factor had eigenvalue 2.00 and provided 19.95% explained variance. In CFA with the second split sample, the two-factor structure showed satisfactory goodness-of-fit (CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.06) while the one-factor structure showed poor data fit (CFI = 0.62, RMSEA = 0.14). Further analyses on the two-factor structure revealed that the whole scale and two subscales had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alphas = 0.67 to 0.78). The total score was positively associated with perceived workload and burnout (r = 0.17 to 0.48), but negatively with work engagement (r = -0.13 to -0.30). In contrary to previous studies, a low inter-factor correlation (r = -0.08) was revealed. CONCLUSIONS: CPSS-10 showed a stable two-factor structure with satisfactory internal consistency and construct validity.

Overview

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 · 10.1186/2050-7283-1-9

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Scree plot of the CPSS-10 in exploratory factor analysis*. * Extraction method: Principal axis factoring; Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalization.
Figure 1 Scree plot of the CPSS-10 in exploratory factor analysis*. * Extraction method: Principal axis factoring; Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser normalization.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Two-factor CFA model of the CPSS-10. All coefficients represent standardized estimates significant at .01 level.
Figure 2 Two-factor CFA model of the CPSS-10. All coefficients represent standardized estimates significant at .01 level.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 41 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Eskin M, Parr D: Introducing a Swedish version of an instrument measuring mental stress. 1996, Stockholm: Department of Psychology, University of Stockholm
  2. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB: Utrecht work engagement scale: preliminary manual. 2003, Utrecht: Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–121 of 121

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ng, S.-M.
Venue
BMC Psychology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-06-19
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
9-9
ISSN
2050-7283 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/2050-7283-1-9
PMC
PMC4269992
OpenAlex
W2134989464
Cited by
121
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2
FWCI
5.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Health and Well-being Studies
Keywords
perceived stress, scale validation, factor structure, two-factor model, burnout, work engagement, perceived workload, psychometric properties

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