Assessing stress in disability: Developing and piloting the Disability Related Stress Scale

Portions of this manuscript were presented at the 28th Annual Meeting and Scientific Sessions of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, Washington, DC, March 21-27, 2007 and at the 30th Annual Meeting and Scientific Sessions of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada April 22-25, 2009.

Paula C. Rhode, Ph.D.†, Katherine Froehlich-Grobe, Ph.D.‡, Jill R. Hockemeyer, Ph.D.†, Jordan A. Carlson, M.A.†, Jaehoon Lee, Ph.D.

†Data collection occurred while the first 4 authors were employees of the University of Kansas Medical Center in the Department of Preventive Medicine.

‡Data collection occurred while the first 4 authors were employees of the University of Kansas Medical Center in the Department of Occupational Therapy Education.

Published Online: April 23, 2012

Disability and Health Journal, July 2012 Volume 5, Issue 3, Pages 168–176
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2012.03.002

 Abstract

Background

Stress negatively influences health, but few scales capture unique stressors encountered by people with physical disability.

Objective/Hypothesis

Conduct a pilot study to develop and evaluate the factor structure of a stress measure targeting unique stressors facing people with physical limitations due to impaired movement of the upper and lower extremities.

Methods

Development of the Disability Related Stress Scale (DRSS) included: (1) obtaining input regarding content and items from focus groups and outside experts and (2) piloting the instrument. Participants recruited from an independent living center attended a focus group or completed the pilot survey. The piloted measure was a 107 item two-part survey. Part 1 assessed stressors encountered over the past week and Part 2 assessed stressors encountered over the past six months. Participants included a convenience sample of 143 adults who experienced a physical limitation; 26 attended focus groups and 117 completed the instrument. Respondents were predominantly women (60%), Caucasian (58%), and unemployed (92%). Respondents were 50.51 ± 14.46 years old and had lived with their disability for 15.64 ± 13.04 years.

Results

Exploratory factor analyses revealed a 4-factor solution for Part 1 and a 2-factor solution for Part 2 of the DRSS. Estimates of internal consistency (Part 1 Cronbach’s α = .78-84; Part 2 Cronbach’s α = .72) and factor loadings (.40-1.00 for Part 1; .43-.87 for Part 2) indicate adequate reliability for all subscales.

Conclusions

Preliminary results provide initial support for the instrument’s reliability and factor structure although further validation studies are warranted.