Dataset Information

Validation of the irritation scale on a representative German sample: new normative data.

ABSTRACT: The irritation scale is a widely used and reliable self-report scale for measuring cognitive and emotional strain related to the work environment. It extends existing measures by providing a sensitive assessment for pre-clinical stress at work. Existing normative data are based on convenience samples and are therefore not representative. This study provides new normative data for the irritation scale based on a representative German sample (N = 1480). The new normative data indicate that the overall level of irritation in the German workforce is significantly lower compared to previously published data. Convergent and discriminant validity is confirmed by correlations with depression and anxiety (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 for Depression and Anxiety), somatic symptom scales (Bodily Distress Syndrome 25 checklist, Somatic Symptom Scale-8, Giessen Subjective Complaints List-8, comorbidity), psychological functioning (Mini-ICF rating for activity and participation disorders in mental illness), work-related stressors (overcommitment and bullying) and individual resources (self-efficacy). The results confirm the utility of the irritation scale and provide new benchmarks that avoid an underestimation of the levels of irritation in future studies.

SUBMITTER: Gralla MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10505143 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validation of the irritation scale on a representative German sample: new normative data.

Gralla Maria S MS Guendel Harald H Mueller Andreas A Braehler Elmar E Häuser Winfried W Kruse Johannes J Muschalla Beate B Rigotti Thomas T Strauss Bernhard B Balint Elisabeth M EM

Scientific reports 20230916 1

The irritation scale is a widely used and reliable self-report scale for measuring cognitive and emotional strain related to the work environment. It extends existing measures by providing a sensitive assessment for pre-clinical stress at work. Existing normative data are based on convenience samples and are therefore not representative. This study provides new normative data for the irritation scale based on a representative German sample (N = 1480). The new normative data indicate that the ove ...[more]

PMID: 37717063

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAssessment of preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) requires reliable and validated methods to detect subtle cognitive changes. The battery of standardized cognitive assessments that is used for diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment due to AD in the TOMMORROW study have only been fully validated in English-speaking countries. We conducted a validation and normative study of the German language version of the TOMMORROW neuropsychological test battery, which tests episodic memory, language, visuospatial ability, executive function, and attention.MethodsGerman-speaking cognitively healthy controls (NCs) and subjects with AD were recruited from a memory clinic at a Swiss medical center. Construct validity, test-retest, and alternate form reliability were assessed in NCs. Criterion and discriminant validities of the cognitive measures were tested using logistic regression and discriminant analysis. Cross-cultural equivalency of performance of the German language tests was compared with English language tests.ResultsA total of 198 NCs and 25 subjects with AD (aged 65-88 years) were analyzed. All German language tests discriminated NCs from persons with AD. Episodic memory tests had the highest potential to discriminate with almost twice the predictive power of any other domain. Test-retest reliability of the test battery was adequate, and alternate form reliability for episodic memory tests was supported. For most tests, age was a significant predictor of group effect sizes; therefore, normative data were stratified by age. Validity and reliability results were similar to those in the published US cognitive testing literature.DiscussionThis study establishes the reliability and validity of the German language TOMMORROW test battery, which performed similarly to the English language tests. Some variations in test performance underscore the importance of regional normative values. The German language battery and normative data will improve the precision of measuring cognition and diagnosing incident mild cognitive impairment due to AD in clinical settings in German-speaking countries.

Project description:BackgroundPublished validation studies have reported different factor structures for the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). The objective of this study was to assess the factor structure of the SCS in a large general population sample representative of the German population.MethodsA German population sample completed the SCS and other self-report measures. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in MPlus was used to test six models previously found in factor analytic studies (unifactorial model, two-factor model, three-factor model, six-factor model, a hierarchical (second order) model with six first-order factors and two second-order factors, and a model with arbitrarily assigned items to six factors). In addition, three bifactor models were also tested: bifactor model #1 with two group factors (SCS positive items, called SCS positive) and SCS negative items, called SCS negative) and one general factor (overall SCS); bifactor model #2, which is a two-tier model with six group factors, three (SCS positive subscales) corresponding to one general dimension (SCS positive) and three (SCS negative subscales) corresponding to the second general dimension (SCS negative); bifactor model #3 with six group factors (six SCS subscales) and one general factor (overall SCS).ResultsThe two-factor model, the six-factor model, and the hierarchical model showed less than ideal, but acceptable fit. The model fit indices for these models were comparable, with no apparent advantage of the six-factor model over the two-factor model. The one-factor model, the three-factor model, and bifactor model #3 showed poor fit. The other two bifactor models showed strong support for two factors: SCS positive and SCS negative.ConclusionThe main results of this study are that, among the German general population, six SCS factors and two SCS factors fit the data reasonably well. While six factors can be modelled, the three negative factors and the three positive factors, respectively, did not reflect reliable or meaningful variance beyond the two summative positive and negative item factors. As such, we recommend the use of two subscale scores to capture a positive factor and a negative factor when administering the German SCS to general population samples and we strongly advise against the use of a total score across all SCS items.

Project description:BackgroundThe Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) has been the most frequently used instrument for the measurement of hopelessness in the past 40 years. Only recently has it officially been translated into German. The psychometric properties and factor structure of the BHS have been cause for intensive debate in the past.MethodsBased on a representative sample of the German population (N = 2450) item analysis including item sensitivity, item-total correlation and item difficulty was performed. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) for several factor solutions from the literature were performed. Multiple group factor analysis was performed to assess measurement invariance. Construct validity was assessed via the replication of well-established correlations with concurrently assessed measures.ResultsMost items exhibited adequate properties. Items #4, #8 and #13 exhibited poor item characteristics- each of these items had previously received negative evaluations in international studies. A one-dimensional factor solution, favorable for the calculation and interpretation of a sum score, was regarded as adequate. A bi-factor model with one content factor and two method factors (defined by positive/negative item coding) resulted in an excellent model fit. Cronbach's alpha in the current sample was .87. Hopelessness, as measured by the BHS, significantly correlated in the expected direction with suicidal ideation (r = .36), depression (r = .53) and life satisfaction (r = -.53). Strict measurement invariance could be established regarding gender and depression status. Due to limited research regarding the interpretation of fit indices with dichotomous data, interpretation of CFA results needs to remain tentative.ConclusionThe BHS is a valid measure of hopelessness in various subgroups of the general population. Future research could aim at replicating these findings using item response theory and cross-cultural samples. A one-dimensional bi-factor model seems appropriate even in a non-clinical population.

Project description:BackroundDysfunctional interpersonal beliefs (DIBs) are a key symptom domain in numerous mental disorders. Because DIBs exert a strong influence on social experience and behavior, they play an important role in a mental disorder's development and progression. To date, only the Interpersonal Cognitive Distortions Scale (ICDS) captures DIBs independently of specific disorders, populations, or contexts. The present study's aim was to psychometrically evaluate and validate a German translation of the ICDS.MethodsThe ICDS was administered along with indicators of convergent (rejection sensitivity, depressive expectations, interpersonal trust, interpersonal problems, perceived social support), discriminant (self-efficacy, perseverative negative thinking, optimism), and clinical validity (psychopathology, perceived stress, well-being) to a pooled sample incorporating non-clinical (N = 114) and clinical (N = 94) participants.ResultsAn exploratory factor analysis (EFA) suggested a five-factor solution (factor loadings: .44 to .85). Correlational analyses demonstrated acceptable convergent (ρ = -.29 to -.35, ρ = .27 to .59), suboptimal discriminant (ρ = -.27 to -.38, ρ = .52), and acceptable clinical validity (ρ = -.21, ρ = .36 to .44) at the total-scale level. However, results at the subscale level were mixed and required nuanced interpretation. Likewise, internal consistency was acceptable at the total-scale level (α = .76), but ranged from good to poor at the subscale level (α = .61 to .80). DIBs mediated the negative relationship between mental disorder onset and psychopathology levels.DiscussionOur results imply DIBs' relevance to mental health and related outcomes. When working with the ICDS's German version, we recommend employing only the "insecurity" subscale, as this was the only scale revealing acceptable psychometric properties. Future studies should improve the construct validity of the ICDS (and its subscales), e.g., by adding more items to the respective subscales and further classes of DIBs.

Dataset Information

Validation of the irritation scale on a representative German sample: new normative data.

Publications

Validation of the irritation scale on a representative German sample: new normative data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets