Educational and Psychological Measurement: A General Measure of Work Stress: The Stress in General Scale

Educational and http://epm.sagepub.
com/
Psychological Measurement
A General Measure of Work Stress: The Stress in General Scale

Jeffrey M. Stanton, William K. Balzer, Patricia C. Smith, Luis Fernando Parra and Gail Ironson
Educational and Psychological Measurement 2001 61: 866
DOI: 10.1177/00131640121971455
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://epm.sagepub.com/content/61/5/866
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Educational and Psychological Measurement can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://epm.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://epm.sagepub.com/content/61/5/866.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Oct 1, 2001
What is This?
Downloaded from epm.sagepub.com at Scientific library of Moscow State University on February 19, 2014
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
STANTON ET AL.
A GENERAL MEASURE OF WORK STRESS:

THE STRESS IN GENERAL SCALE
JEFFREY M. STANTON
Syracuse University
WILLIAM K. BALZER AND PATRICIA C. SMITH

Bowling Green State University
LUIS FERNANDO PARRA

William M. Mercer, Inc.
GAIL IRONSON
University of Miami
The present study focused on the development and validation of scores on the Stress in
General scale. Three diverse samples of workers (n = 4,322, n = 574, n = 34) provided
psychometric and validity evidence. All evidence converged on the existence of two dis-
tinct subscales, each of which measured a different aspect of general work stress. The
studies also resulted in meaningful patterns of correlations with stressor measures, a
physiological measure of chronic stress (blood-pressure reactivity), general job attitude
measures, and intentions to quit.
Workplace stress has been related to a number of deleterious and costly in-
dividual problems (e.g., headaches, gastrointestinal disorders, anxiety, hy-
pertension, coronary heart disease, depression) and organizational outcomes
We thank present and past Job Descriptive Index research group members Evan Sinar,
Amanda Julian, Gwenith Fischer, Matt O’Connor, Bonnie Sandman, Sarah Moore-Hirschl, Ka-
ren Paul, Bob Hayes, Rob Schmieder, Susan Hahn, Michelle Haff, Heidi VandeKemp, Pilar
Delaney, Todd Birchenough, and Marian Silverman for their assistance on the many stages of
this project. A special thanks is also extended to Carlla Smith for her invaluable guidance in the
preparation of this article. Correspondence may be addressed to Jeffrey M. Stanton, Syracuse
University, School of Information Studies, 4-125 Center for Science and Technology, Syracuse,
NY 13244; e-mail: jmstanto@syr.edu.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 61 No. 5, October 2001 866-888
© 2001 Sage Publications
866
STANTON ET AL. 867
(e.g., job dissatisfaction, burnout, accidents, loss of productivity, absentee-

ism, turnover) (Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991; Gupta & Beehr, 1979;
Ironson, 1992; Murphy, Hurrell, Sauter, & Keita, 1995; Quick, Horn, &
Quick, 1987; Sauter & Murphy, 1995). These consequences have sustained a
continuing interest in assessing stress at work in an effort to understand the
etiology of workplace stress, pinpoint sources of stress, and guide the use of
stress reduction interventions.
Current techniques for measuring stress fall into one of three categories:
self-reports, behavioral measures, and medical/biological measures (Cooper,
Sloan, & Williams, 1988; Fleming & Baum, 1987; Quick & Quick, 1984). To
facilitate noninvasive field and laboratory research, the present study focused
on the development of a self-report measure of work stress that can be admin-
istered rapidly and uniformly using a structured, closed-ended response for-
mat. In developing this Stress in General (SIG) measure, we took a broad
approach that avoided links to specific stressors or strains, in contrast to the
many previous efforts to measure work stress that centered on cataloguing
the presence of various classes of stressors or short-term strains. The need for
the present validation study is underscored by the existence of published
studies that have used early prepublication versions of the scale. Such studies
include Glomb, Munson, Hulin, Bergman, and Drasgow (1999); Glomb et al.
(1997); Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, and Magley (1997); Schneider,
Swan, and Fitzgerald (1997); and Waldo (1999). The instrument is clearly
popular and practical even lacking published validity data.
A Stress Model as a Foundation for Measurement
In 1966, Lazarus published an important volume that refocused stress

research from the physiological into the cognitive domain. This work, as well
as later efforts by Lazarus and his colleagues (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984;
Lazarus & Launier, 1978), highlighted the position that many stressors do not
induce stress unless they are first perceived as a stressor by the organism. This
cognitive-phenomenological approach to stress has achieved widespread use
in the organizational sciences (e.g., Beehr, Johnson, & Nieva, 1995;
Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980; Schuler, 1980). In such models, stress has a
relational, process-oriented definition: “a particular relationship between the
person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or
exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being” (Laza-
rus & Folkman, 1984, p. 19).
Lazarus (1966) pinpointed three opportunities for recognition and cogni-
tive processing of stress perceptions: primary appraisal, secondary appraisal,
and reappraisal. Primary appraisal refers to the perceptual and cognitive pro-
cesses by which an individual recognizes a stressor as stressful. Secondary
appraisal involves the selection of a response to the stressor. Reappraisal
868 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT
assesses the stressfulness of the situation anew. After primary appraisal, the
secondary and reappraisal processes may iterate indefinitely.
The Lazarus model provides a useful framework for understanding prior
efforts to assess work stress. We divide assessments of stress into three gen-
eral approaches: measurement or cataloguing of stressors, stress symptom or
outcome measurement, and reports of the experience of stress. In the first of
these three approaches, individuals report the existence of stressors initially
detected through primary appraisal. Such measures, often in the form of
checklists that attempt to catalogue the existence of various stressors, are
problematic because all respondents will not universally regard every check-
list item as a stressor, even if they report its presence. In the same vein, no list
of stressors can ever provide a comprehensive set of workplace stress sources
that will be relevant for all persons and situations. Some scale developers
have responded to this issue by sorting stressors into a constrained set of cate-
gories. For example, factor analysis of items in the Job Stress Index (JSI)
(Sandman, 1992) revealed stressor categories such as bureaucratic red tape,
time pressure, and incompetent coworkers and supervisors. This measure-
ment approach can be useful when a particular class of stressor (e.g., role
overload) is the topic of investigation (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970).
When the research interest lies in the general experience of workplace stress,
however, even a combined score from multiple stressor categories may fail to
assess the degree of perceived threat or conflict in the complete set of stress-
ors felt by the respondent. Scarpello and Campbell (1983) made an analo-
gous argument about the relationship of facets of job satisfaction to general
job satisfaction: They presented evidence that a typical set of job satisfaction
facet scores cannot explain all the variance in a general measure of job
satisfaction.
A second approach to the measurement of work stress addresses
responses to stress, including physiological responses and the symptom-
atology of stress. In most models of stress (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984,
p. 308), the experience of stress can lead to symptom manifestations often
called strains. Some strains manifest primarily in the psychological domain
(e.g., depression), whereas others manifest in the physiological domain (e.g.,
ulcers). Checklists of physical strains (e.g., headaches, poor appetite, ner-
vousness, weakness) are a popular measurement approach (Moos, Cronkite,
Billings, & Finney, 1986). Other well-known measures of this type include
the Cornell Medical Index (Brodman, Erdman, Lorge, & Wolff, 1949) and
the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach & Jackson, 1981).
Relying on self-reports of strains to measure stress has its own pitfalls,
however. In the context of Lazarus’ (1966) primary appraisal, secondary
appraisal, and reappraisal, reports of strains seem disconnected from the cog-
nitive experience of stress. Indeed, multiple potential causes exist for any
given symptom, and only a subset may relate directly to work stress. Using
STANTON ET AL. 869
reports of strains may be a deficient or contaminated measure of work stress

unless the respondent or researcher can correctly determine and accurately
report only those symptoms caused by work.
A third measurement approach emerges between the front end of the stress
process (i.e., the stressors) and the back end of the stress process (i.e., the
strains). This middle approach focuses on obtaining self-reports of the expe-
rience of stress. In Lazarus’ (1966) terms, during primary appraisal and reap-
praisal, the respondent has conscious awareness of the experience of stress
and can presumably report the feeling tone of this experience. By way of
illustration, consider an employee on the morning before an important public
presentation. The presentation (or anticipation of it) is the stressor, and a
strain may manifest in the form of an abdominal cramp. But along with the
primary appraisal of the interview as a meaningful stressor, the employee
could presumably report the experience as “uncomfortable” or perhaps
“nerve-wracking.” Such reports of the experience of stress serve as the basis
of the instrument described in this study.
Preliminary work by Greller and Parsons (1988) suggested that reports of
the feeling or tone associated with the experience of stress could serve as a
useful measure. Greller and Parsons catalogued a comprehensive list of phys-
ical and mental symptoms associated with the work stress of police person-
nel. In addition, the researchers collected Likert-scaled endorsements of nine
adjectives (e.g., tense, relaxed), each ostensibly a report of the feeling of
stress. Not all of the symptoms in the checklist functioned properly, and some
had to be dropped. The list of adjectives, however, exhibited excellent
psychometric characteristics. Furthermore, the nine-item adjective checklist
correlated .86 in one sample and .92 in another sample with a summated mea-
sure of stress symptoms. This evidence hinted that a brief, general measure of
stress could be developed that would not be tied to specific stressors or strains
but would have substantial associations with such indicators of stress.
Scale Development and Score Validation Strategies
Clark and Watson (1995) provided a thorough, theory-driven analysis of

the processes of scale development and score validation, including a set of
recommendations for item sampling and selection as well as for analysis and
validation of scores on a new scale. The procedures we followed paralleled
their recommendations at each stage of the development of the SIG, begin-
ning with the development of validation goals (i.e., what the instrument
should measure and what it should not measure). These goals included (a)
development of a measure of stress distinct from dissatisfaction that could
serve as (b) a general job stress measure that is (c) widely applicable across
varied settings and examinees. Three distinct studies were instrumental in
pursuing these goals.
Validation Goals
A measure of stress but not dissatisfaction. Although a plethora of mea-

sures of job stress exist (Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, 1981; Fleming &
Baum, 1987; Holt, 1982, 1993), there exists no measure of job stress that
assesses general levels of perceived work stress. In particular, Holt’s (1993)
extensive listing of stress measures indicated a dearth of brief scales for mea-
suring the general experience of occupational stress. Another important point
emerging from Holt’s review was that researchers have used measures of per-
son-organization fit and general job satisfaction as proxies for work stress.
We explicitly set for ourselves the goal of developing a measure of work
stress demonstrably distinct from job satisfaction.
A general measure. Smith (1976) argued that understanding and predict-

ing behavior and attitudes could improve if both constructs were located in a
similar position on the general-specific continuum. Similarly, Ajzen and
Fishbein (1977; 1980, p. 246) argued that various behaviors (e.g., smoking)
are more accurately predicted from attitudes when there is a match (i.e., simi-
lar levels of specificity or generality) between the targets, action, context, and
time frame of the measured attitude and behavior. A measure of general job
stress should be suitable for investigating relations with other constructs of a
general nature (e.g., employee withdrawal, overall job satisfaction).
A widely applicable measure. Breznitz and Goldberger (1993) discussed

the situational dependency of measures of stressors and strains. A work stress
measure that is not tied to specific stressors or strains would have wide appli-
cability because relevant stressors and strains probably differ among profes-
sions, industries, cultures, and so forth. Furthermore, a measure that can be
completed by workers with differing levels of reading ability would be useful
across a wide variety of jobs and organizations. To serve the same end, a sim-
ple response format would also facilitate rapid and uniform administration of
the measure. Research has indicated that dichotomous or trichotomous
response formats work as well as multiple-point response formats for many
applications (Johnson, Smith, & Tucker, 1982; Watson, Clark, & Harkness,
1994).
Study 1: Item Generation and Selection

In the process of developing a general measure of job satisfaction,
Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, and Paul (1989) generated a comprehen-
sive list of evaluative adjectives and adjective phrases from a survey of the lit-
erature. Each item was intended to capture a general, affectively oriented
evaluation of the respondent’s job situation. From this initial pool, 18 items
were selected to form the Job in General (JIG) scale of general satisfaction as
STANTON ET AL. 871
documented in Ironson et al. (also see Balzer et al., 1990, 1997). Exploratory
factor analysis of the item pool yielded additional factors indicative of the
stressfulness of the job situation (e.g., “stressful,” “tense,” “nerve-wrack-
ing,” “hectic”). Notably, these adjectives overlapped substantially with the
adjectival items included in Greller and Parsons’s (1988) efforts to develop a
psychosomatic measure of work stress. Examination of this set of adjectives
formed the basis of our first validation study of the SIG.
Method
Procedure. To ensure sufficient breadth in our item pool, we used two

additional sources of adjectives to supplement those ascertained in the
Ironson et al. (1989) study. First, we conducted a literature search to identify
words and short phrases that were frequently used to describe stress as well as
dictionary and thesaurus definitions of stress. Because the SIG was intended
to assess the general stress feelings of workers while on the job, we also con-
sidered descriptions of experienced stress from workers as a logical and
straightforward method of item generation. Thus, in a series of small pilot
studies, we also obtained verbal reports from employed individuals who
described how they felt when they were under stress. These verbal reports
came from workers holding a variety of positions in a number of different
organizations. From these sources, we developed a preliminary list of 53
adjectives or brief adjectival phrases. We used descriptive statistics and item-
total correlations from the pilot work to reduce the list to 18 items. We admin-
istered these to employees in the context of a larger survey of job attitudes.
Participants. Employees of a large unit of an aerospace company, located

in the Midwest, completed the research survey in groups during working
hours. Completed questionnaires were placed in envelopes, sealed, and col-
lected at the end of each session. Employees not located at the primary facil-
ity received the questionnaire in the mail and sent it directly back to the
researchers with a postpaid return envelope. Of the original 6,715 question-
naires, 4,322 usable questionnaires (64%) were returned. The sample was
73% male, with a typical age range of 25 to 29 years. Most respondents had
been with the company 3 to 5 years.
Measures. In addition to the new SIG items, we administered the JIG scale
(Ironson et al., 1989), the stressor subscales of the JSI (Sandman, 1992;
Sandman & Smith, 1988), the Intent to Quit scale (Mobley, Horner, &
Hollingsworth, 1978), and a single-item general stress measure (“On a scale
from 1 to 10, indicate the amount of stress on your job.”). Reliability for
scores on the single-item measure could not be estimated, but other general
single-item measures have proved useful (Scarpello & Campbell, 1983). As a
deliberate challenge to the discriminant validity of our stress measure scores,

we commingled the items of the JIG with the new stress items. We expected
this procedure to maximize the method variance between job satisfaction and
general job stress, thus providing worst-case evidence about the overlap
between these measures. As another intentional result of this strategy, the
new SIG items had the same response format and the same respondent
instructions as the JIG.
Results
Item distributions. We focused first on psychometric analysis of our pro-

posed SIG items as outlined by Clark and Watson (1995). Because the SIG
items obtained responses on the standard JIG/Job Descriptive Index (JDI)
(yes/no/?) format, virtually every item distribution was substantially platy-
kurtic. Researchers using the JDI and JIG scales have consistently scored the
“?” between the “no” and the “yes” response. The “?” universally obtains the
lowest rate of endorsement (Balzer et al., 1990, 1997; Smith, Kendall, &
Hulin, 1969). Thus, a flattened, slightly U-shaped distribution appears for
many JDI and JIG items. The same pattern was obtained here. Only one item
(“overwhelming”) displayed a particularly skewed distribution, with 77.1%
reporting no, 9.3% reporting ?, and 13.4% reporting yes. Ironson et al. (1989)
reported retaining scale items with more skewness than this, so we chose to
retain all 18 items from this preliminary stage of the analysis.
Exploratory factor analysis. We needed to establish a suitable item-scor-

ing method before beginning an analysis of the dimensionality of the items.
Researchers score the JDI and JIG scales by assigning the value of 0 to a no
response, 3 to a yes response, and 1 to a ? response (see Hanisch, 1992; Smith
et al., 1969; negatively worded items are reverse scored). Thus, there is an
asymmetry with a ? response scored closer to a no than a yes. Under the
assumption that maximizing coherent variance among the items was an
appropriate goal, we used first factor saturation from a principal components
analysis (i.e., the eigenvalue of the first component) as a measure of coherent
variance. We tested scoring systems for ? from 0 to 3 and nine positions in
between. The eigenvalue reached a maximum when 1.5 was used for ? (i.e., a
fully symmetric approach with ? halfway between no and yes).
To assess the dimensionality of the 18 items, an exploratory factor analy-
sis with maximum likelihood extraction and oblique rotation was then con-
ducted. Oblique rotation was appropriate because of the expected correlation
between factors (Kim & Mueller, 1978). Three factors with eigenvalues in
excess of 1.0 were extracted (7.56, 1.50, and 1.11). The scree plot was incon-
clusive as no level area of the plot appeared until the fourth factor. The
oblique rotation for a three-factor solution required an unusually large num-
STANTON ET AL. 873
Table 1
Study 1: Characteristics of Retained Items
SIG-I (alpha = .88) SIG-II (alpha = .82)

a
Item M SD ITC Item M SD ITC
Demanding 2.13 1.3 .61 Irritating 1.19 1.4 .55

Pressured 1.87 1.4 .74 Under control (R) 0.88 1.2 .51
Hectic 2.07 1.3 .68 Nerve-wracking 1.19 1.4 .63
Calm (R) 2.25 1.2 .63 Hassled 1.25 1.4 .61
Relaxed (R) 2.15 1.3 .64 Comfortable (R) 1.14 1.3 .49
Many things stressful 1.83 1.4 .68 More stressful than I’d like 1.23 1.4 .60
Pushed 1.58 1.4 .66 Smooth running (R) 1.81 1.3 .50
Overwhelming 0.56 1.1 .37
Note. SIG = Stress in General scale. Each item was scored as “no” = 0, “?” = 1.5, “yes” = 3. (R) signifies a re-
verse-coded item.
a. Corrected item-total correlation.
ber of iterations to converge (> 150). The resulting rotation left only two
items weakly associated with the third factor. Using tables calculated by
Lautenschlager (1989), we determined that a meaningful eigenvalue cutoff
was 1.18. All this evidence suggested that a two-factor solution was most
appropriate.
Using the eigenvalue cutoff of 1.18, a two-factor solution was calculated
and obliquely rotated (the factor intercorrelation was .61). The solution
showed one item (“interrupted”) with a structure coefficient lower than .35,
the cutoff suggested by Kim and Mueller (1978). Additionally, two items
(“tense” and “frantic”) had cross-factor structure coefficients in excess of
.33. To improve reliability and promote unidimensionality for scores on each
factor, we dropped these three items from further analysis. One seven-item
scale and one eight-item scale remained. The items, their means and standard
deviations, and their corrected item-total correlations appear in Table 1.
As a tentative initial configuration, we thus formed two summative
subscales. The first factor, which contained seven items such as “demanding”
and “pushed,” had an alpha of .88 and an observed range from 0 (signifying
less stress) to 21 (signifying more stress). The second factor, which contained
items such as “hassled” and “overwhelming,” had an alpha of .82 and an
observed range from 0 (signifying less stress) to 24 (signifying more stress).
The first factor had two reverse-coded items, and the second factor had three.
We deferred interpretation and naming of the factors until further exploration
of the validity evidence.
Ease of completion. We conducted two analyses to assess whether work-

ers with limited reading comprehension skills could complete the SIG items
appropriately. First, the reading level for the SIG was calculated using the
RightWriter 3.1 software program (Rosenblum, Gansler, & Frank, 1990).
Results indicated a sixth-grade reading level. A more direct test of the effect
of reading comprehension was accomplished by comparing internal consis-
tency reliability estimates for the two SIG factors for subgroups of respon-
dents at different educational levels. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates
were calculated separately for each of five educational levels: (a) some high
school, (b) high school graduate, (c) some college, (d) college graduate, and
(e) graduate degree. Reliabilities for scores on Factor 1 ranged from .73 to
.86, and reliabilities for scores on Factor 2 ranged from .77 to .83. In both
cases, the lowest reliability came from scores of the subgroup of respondents
in the lowest education level, suggesting that reading level did affect internal
consistency. Nonetheless, all of the reliabilities were higher than the .70 stan-
dard suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994, p. 265) for scales under
construction.
Validity evidence. Our three goals for examining validity in the present
study were to assess SIG’s convergence with the JSI subscales and a one-item
measure of stress, to establish SIG’s divergence from general job satisfac-
tion, and to check SIG’s ability to predict Intent to Quit. A zero-order correla-
tion matrix among all measures and the two SIG factors appears in Table 2.
Several notable correlations appeared in this matrix. First, both factors of the
scale were substantially correlated with the one-item general measure of
stress. The correlation of .70 with the first factor (SIG-I) suggested that the
single-item measure and SIG-I are tapping the same variance, within the lim-
its of reliability. SIG-I also had a sizeable correlation (r = .52) with the Time
Pressure subscale of the JSI. In contrast, the second factor (SIG-II) had mod-
est positive correlations (from r = .09 to r = .34) with all of the stressor scales
of the JSI but no especially strong correlations.
Of additional interest were the correlations between the two SIG factors
and the nonstress measures. Based on prior research, we expected negative
correlation of SIG with general job satisfaction and positive correlation with
Intent to Quit (e.g., Ironson, 1992; Lyons, 1972). Although the SIG-I had nei-
ther a strong association with general job satisfaction (r = –.10) nor with
Intent to Quit (r = .12), SIG-II had sizeable correlations with both these mea-
sures (r = –.47 with JIG and r = .36 with Intent to Quit). As a method of clari-
fying the distinctions between the two stress factors and job satisfaction, we
conducted three regression analyses with the JSI scales as the predictor vari-
ables and SIG-I, SIG-II, and JIG, respectively, as the criterion variables. The
overall adjusted R2 values were .32, .22, and .16 for SIG-I, SIG-II, and JIG,
respectively. All three analyses yielded statistically significant F values. At a
gross level, this indicated that the JSI stressor measures, as a group,
accounted for more variance in each of the SIG factors than in general job
satisfaction.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix for Study 1
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. SIG-I (Pressure) 13.9 7.10 .88

2. SIG-II (Threat) 9.24 6.99 .65 .82
3. Job in General 39.1 5.09 –.10 –.47 .78
4. Intent to Quit 17.3 4.86 .12 .36 –.51 .88
5. One-item stress 6.40 1.89 .70 .56 .13 –.17 —
6. JSI: Red tape 3.19 1.18 .24 .23 .07 –.14 .20 .74
7. JSI: Time pressure 24.3 6.04 .52 .34 –.06 –.08 .39 .40 .84
8: JSI: Lack of feedback 10.6 2.98 .11 .27 .21 –.27 .08 .29 .34 .68
9. JSI: Lack of participation 15.4 4.15 .14 .32 .25 –.30 .12 .31 .36 .66 .75
10. JSI: Lack of achievement 7.73 2.34 –.10 .13 .25 –.27 –.10 .19 .18 .50 .51 .56
11. JSI: Lack of interpersonal
skill of supervisor 9.45 2.90 .13 .33 .31 –.30 .13 .17 .18 .44 .53 .35 .72
12. JSI: Lack of competence of
supervisor 4.81 1.91 .11 .27 .23 –.24 .10 .16 .24 .47 .51 .35 .53 .66
13. JSI: Lack of interpersonal
skill of others 8.88 3.03 .16 .29 .14 –.17 .14 .23 .32 .38 .42 .29 .34 .32 .71
14. Lack of competence of
others 7.29 2.50 .15 .20 .07 –.12 .09 .22 .37 .37 .40 .30 .28 .34 .55 .69
15. Physical demands and
danger 10.9 3.01 .07 .22 .19 –.16 .08 .17 .22 .32 .38 .33 .38 .31 .32 .28 .71
Note. N = 4,322. Alpha reliabilities appear on the diagonal. SIG = Stress in General scale; JSI = Job Stress Index.
875
16
14
12
10
SIG-II: Threat 8
2
y = 0.031x - 0.0946x + 4.2286
4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
SIG-I: Pressure
Figure 1. Curvilinear regression line between two factors of the Stress in General (SIG) scale
using data from Study 1.
Note. SIG = Stress in General scale.
Exploratory analysis. As a routine matter, we graphed a scatterplot depict-

ing scores on the two factors. The correlation of r = .65 between the factors
hinted that we would find a linear relationship between the two factors. How-
ever, the scatterplot indicated a distinctively curvilinear relationship between
them. We confirmed the relationship using procedures suggested by Cohen
and Cohen (1983, p. 224). The adjusted R2 for the linear prediction was .422,
F(1, 4314) = 3152.4, and the ∆R2 for the quadratic term was .032, F(1, 4313) =
252.6. This result indicated that allowing a curvilinear relationship between
the two factors accounted for slightly more covariance between the factors.
The quadratic regression line appears in Figure 1.
Factor naming. Following from our analyses, we adopted tentative names

for the two SIG factors. SIG-I obtained a high correlation with time pressure
and contained words like “hectic” and “pressured.” We thus labeled this first
factor the Pressure subscale. SIG-II items appeared to indicate a more serious
level of stress. The curvilinear relationship suggested this (Figure 1 illus-
trates that few individuals had a high score on SIG-II without also having a
high score on the SIG-I). The item content also supported this because words
such as “overwhelming” and “nerve-wracking” suggest a threatening and
negative quality to the work experience. Finally, the moderately high correla-
tion with Intent to Quit supported the serious nature of a high score on SIG-II.
STANTON ET AL. 877
Thus, we labeled SIG-II the Threat subscale. Note that these labels are consis-
tent with process-oriented terminology used by Lazarus (1998, pp. 185- 212),
but we offer them here as convenient descriptive labels rather than as docu-
mented psychological stages of the work stress experience.
Study 2: Cross-Validation
The purpose of Study 2 was to cross validate results from Study 1 and
compile additional validity evidence concerning scores on the SIG measure.
In particular, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to obtain
further evidence concerning the factor structure documented in Study 1. In
addition, we wished to cross validate the curvilinear relationship between the
two subscales. Finally, we examined relationships between the SIG subscales
and some new measures to provide additional evidence concerning the valid-
ity of the SIG subscale scores.
Method
Procedure. The same list of 18 adjectives was administered to research

participants in the context of a larger survey of recruiting and retention con-
ducted for a large national professional organization. The 18 items appeared
in their own block, under a new set of instructions (“Do you find your job
stressful? For each of the following words and phrases, circle 1 for ‘Yes’ if it
describes your job, 2 for ‘No’ if it does not describe your job, and 3 for ‘?’ if
you cannot decide.”). Survey instruments were mailed to participants at work
or home, together with a cover letter, instructions, and a postage-paid return
envelope. As an incentive, participants learned that the sponsoring organiza-
tion would donate $5 to a college scholarship fund for each returned survey.
Participants. Of the 2,500 mailed packets, 574 usable questionnaires

(23%) were returned. This response rate compares favorably with other
research that used mail administration of paper-and-pencil survey instru-
ments without direct participant incentives (Roth & BeVier, 1998). The final
sample was 59% male. Average age was 34 years, average organizational ten-
ure was 6.7 years, and average job tenure was 3.7 years. Although ethnicity
was not requested on the survey instrument, the great majority of members of
the professional organization were African Americans. The professional
organization reported that these demographic characteristics were compara-
ble to those of the overall membership.
Measures. Similar to Study 1, the SIG items, the JIG (Ironson et al., 1989),
and an Intent to Quit scale appeared in the survey instrument. Two additional
scales were included to measure stressors known to be relevant to the
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix for Study 2
Name M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. SIG-I (Pressure) 12.33 6.93 .83

2. SIG-II (Threat) 9.07 7.06 .59 .81
3. Job in General 37.4 12.7 –.11 –.57 .91
4. Intent to Quit 2.93 1.14 .09 .38 –.60 .81
5. Discrimination 3.51 0.73 .10 .23 –.35 .28 .89
6. Work-Family 2.61 0.73 .43 .48 –.40 .34 .34 .80
Note. N = 574. Alpha reliabilities appear on the diagonal. SIG = Stress in General scale.
population. These scales were a 13-item measure of work-family balance

adapted from Kopelman, Greenhaus, and Connolly (1983) and a 15-item
measure of racial discrimination in the workplace (James, Lovato, &
Cropanzano, 1994). Prior research on work stress has suggested that both
work-family balance and racial discrimination are meaningful sources of
stress for some workers (e.g., Adams & Jex, 1999; Mays, Coleman, & Jack-
son, 1996; Toliver, 1998, p. 22).
Results
We formed two summative subscales from the SIG items using the config-
uration of items ascertained from Study 1. The resulting two subscales
yielded scores with alpha reliabilities of .83 and .81, quite similar to those
found in Study 1. A matrix of intercorrelations appears in Table 3 along with
coefficient alpha estimates and descriptive statistics for all measures.
CFA. As a first step, we conducted a CFA to see if the factor structure

ascertained in Study 1 would hold in Study 2. We analyzed a variance-
covariance matrix of the full set of SIG items. Table 4 lists fit indices for a
set of nested CFA models used to test the factor structure. The model with the
worst fit was one in which all items were forced to correlate with a single fac-
tor. Releasing this constraint improved the chi-square fit statistic, ∆χ2(1) =
216.8, p < .001. This information suggested that a two-factor model was pref-
erable to a one-factor model.
In absolute terms, however, the fit of the two-factor model was not satis-
factory. For example, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) for the two-factor
model was .87, below the .90 rule of thumb for satisfactory fit. Table 4 pres-
ents fit statistics for each model. We followed the recommendations of Bollen
and Long (1993, p. 8) to report multiple fit indices: an absolute fit index
(GFI), an incremental fit index (normed fit index [NFI]), an incremental fit
index corrected for model complexity (nonnormed fit index [NNFI]), and an
STANTON ET AL. 879
Table 4
Fit Statistics for Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models
Model Description Chi-Square df GFI RMSR NFI NNFI
One-factor model 806.4 90 .80 .17 .73 .71

Two-factor model 589.8 89 .87 .15 .80 .80
Two-factor model, two items cross correlated 468.8 87 .89 .12 .84 .84
Two-factor model, three items cross correlated 437.7 86 .90 .11 .86 .85
Note. GFI = goodness-of-fit index; RMSR = root mean square residual; NFI = normed fit index; NNFI =
nonnormed fit index.
index of residual size (root mean square residual [RMSR]). For the GFI, NFI,
and NNFI, a value closer to 1.0 indicates better model fit. For the RMSR, a
value closer to 0 represents better model fit.
To diagnose the source of the model misfit, we examined modification
indices for the path coefficients. The modification indices for two items,
“irritating” and “demanding,” indicated that cross-loading paths would
improve model fit. Thus, in the next model, we allowed irritating to correlate
with the Pressure factor and demanding to correlate with the Threat factor.
These modifications improved the chi-square fit statistic, ∆χ2(2) = 21, p <
.001. Importantly, both cross-factor coefficients were opposite in sign to the
coefficients on each item’s primary factor. This evidence argued against
dropping the items or reassigning them to the other factor.
We iterated this process one additional time by allowing “relaxed” to cross
correlate onto the Threat factor. Again, the modifications improved the chi-
square fit statistic, ∆χ2(1) = 11.1, p < .001). The resulting model had a satis-
factory GFI = .90 and improved values of the other fit statistics. The parame-
ter estimate for relaxed on its original factor (.28) was lower than its estimate
for the Threat factor (.37). No additional model respecifications were under-
taken because extensive use of modification indices capitalizes on chance
factors in the data, and we wished to avoid overfitting the model. Overall, the
results suggest the legitimacy of a two-factor model and the strong likelihood
that some items, such as relaxed, may fail to associate purely with one factor.
Pending further study of the SIG, we opted to retain relaxed on the Pressure
factor with the knowledge that this choice would inflate the correlation
between the scales. We also examined the impact of switching relaxed to the
Threat factor. This made only minute differences in the correlation matrix,
with no relationships changing by more than .02. Switching this one item also
had minimal effect on levels of subscale scores (scored as the mean of all
included items).
Validity evidence. Our validity goals for the present study were to confirm
two plausible antecedents of SIG (i.e., the two stressors) and reconfirm one
outcome related to SIG, Intent to Quit. We also accumulated more evidence
for the divergence of SIG from JIG. Zero-order correlations shown in Table 3
indicated that each SIG subscale related, at least weakly, to self-reports of
racial discrimination in the workplace (r = .10 for Pressure, and r = .23 for
Threat). Correlations in Table 3 also show that the SIG was strongly related to
scores on the work-family balance scale (r = .43 for Pressure, and r = .48 for
Threat). To clarify these relationships, we computed three regression analy-
ses, each using racial discrimination and work-family balance stressor scales
as predictors and with the two SIG subscales and the JIG scale as criteria. The
predictors explained approximately equal proportions of variance in each of
the three criterion measures: R2 = .19 for the analysis of SIG Pressure, R2 =
.23 for SIG Threat, and R2 = .21 for JIG. All three analyses yielded statisti-
cally significant F values. Taken together, the correlational evidence indi-
cated that work-family balance was a possible antecedent of SIG, but racial
discrimination was not.
Curvilinearity analysis. As a final step, we reconfirmed the curvilinear

relationship between SIG Pressure and SIG Threat. Following the same pro-
cedure as for Study 1, we ascertained that the entry of the quadratic term into
the regression had a statistically significant ∆R2. The adjusted R2 for the first
step was .343, F(1, 572) = 299.5, reflecting the strong correlation between the
two subscales. The ∆R2 for the second step was .022, F(1, 571) = 19.3. This
result confirmed the curvilinear relationship between the two subscales that
was found in Study 1. A scatterplot of the two subscales (not shown) also con-
firmed the curvilinear shape as described above for Study 1.
Study 3: Physiological Correlates of SIG

As part of a stress management seminar, participants provided physiologi-
cal measures and completed a battery of self-report tests under a variety of
experimental conditions. Prior research has shown that individuals who suf-
fer from chronic stress show larger increases in blood pressure during a
stressful event (Marrero, al’Absi, Pincomb, & Lovallo, 1997; Veit, Brody, &
Rau, 1997; Voegele, Jarvis, & Cheeseman, 1997). For a complete review of
the relationships among blood-pressure reactivity, stress, and health, see
Schneiderman et al. (in press). In accord with previous research, we hypothe-
sized a correlative relationship between the two SIG subscales and blood-
pressure reactivity.
Method
Participants. Study participants were recruited through advertisements

for a stress management workshop placed in the local newspaper of a small
midwestern university town. The advertisement offered no compensation but
STANTON ET AL. 881
did offer a free multiday stress management workshop to volunteers. Thirty-

four out of 48 individuals who participated in the study provided complete
data on the focal variables. The mean age of participants was 41.8 years, and
69% of the sample were males. Note that the nature of the recruiting process
was such that participants with moderate to high levels of chronic life stress
self-selected for participation in the workshop and this study.
Procedure. Participants completed an extensive self-report instrument

that contained a medical history and other measures, including the SIG
subscales. Participants also completed a stress test that comprised a timed
and graded cognitive task (mental arithmetic) that prior research had shown
to induce mild stress in experimental participants (e.g., Jiang et al., 1996).
Blood-pressure readings were collected during a 14-minute baseline period,
a 2-minute anticipatory period in which participants were put on alert con-
cerning the upcoming stressor, the 4-minute administration of the stressor,
and an 8-minute poststressor recovery period. As physiological indicators of
chronic stress, we calculated the blood-pressure reactivity (rise) (a) between
the anticipatory period and the baseline, (b) between the stress period and the
baseline, and (c) between the stress period and the recovery period. Higher
values on each of these measures would suggest the likelihood of chronic
stress as well as risk factors for hypertension.
Measures. The SIG contained the same set of items as in Studies 1 and 2.
We scored these in two subscales as indicated by the factor analysis evidence
of Studies 1 and 2. Blood pressure was measured using a standard sphygmo-
manometer. We analyzed measurements of systolic blood pressure, which
prior research has shown to produce more stable and reliable measurements
of cardiovascular reactivity (Veit et al., 1997). To increase the precision of
our measurements, we averaged across all readings taken within a given
phase of the trial.
Results
A clear pattern emerged in the zero-order correlation matrix for Study 3

that appears in Table 5. The Pressure subscale of the SIG correlated positively
with all three measures of systolic blood-pressure reactivity (r = .36, r = .40,
and r = .40). The Threat subscale of the SIG also correlated positively with
blood-pressure rise, but the correlations were weak.
Discussion
This article described the development of the SIG, beginning with an
explication of the measure’s theoretical context. We framed the SIG develop-
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study 3
Name M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. SIG-I (Pressure) 15.5 6.73 .90

2. SIG-II (Threat) 10.9 6.86 .69 .79
3. BP: Anticipatory-baseline 1.72 5.86 .36 .12 —
4. BP: Stressor-baseline 3.99 8.01 .40 .19 .51 —
5. BP: Stressor-recovery 4.78 6.33 .40 .21 .39 .78 —
Note. N = 34. Alpha reliabilities appear on the diagonal. SIG = Stress in General scale; BP = blood pressure.
ment using the relational, process-oriented approach to stress advocated by

Lazarus and others (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 19). We provided exten-
sive, repeated tests of the SIG scores’ psychometric characteristics and
included several diverse pieces of validity evidence. Besides obtaining suit-
able basic psychometric characteristics, we had three development goals for
the SIG. First, we intended to develop a measure of job stress that was demon-
strably distinct from general job satisfaction. Second, we wished to develop a
general measure rather than one that focused on particular stressors or strains
(e.g., in contrast to the JSI). Finally, we aimed to develop a measure that
would apply in a wide range of contexts. This discussion examines how far
we proceeded toward these goals.
Psychometric Evidence
Various analyses indicated that the SIG produces reliable scores. Item-
total correlations and alpha reliabilities obtained acceptable levels for both
subscales in all samples. Our analyses also indicated the importance of treat-
ing the SIG as two distinct though correlated subscales. Exploratory discov-
ery of the curvilinear relationship between the two scales in Study 1 and con-
firmation of this relationship in Study 2 argued against simply summing the
subscale totals. In addition, the CFA in Study 2 supported a two-factor solu-
tion, even though the cross relationships of items from each subscale indi-
cated that we should continue work on purifying the two factors. The differ-
ing patterns of correlations of the two subscales with other measures also
argued against mixing the two factors. This evidence is critical because pub-
lished studies such as Glomb et al. (1999) have treated the SIG as a unitary
factor.
Divergence From Job Satisfaction
Holt’s (1993) review of work stress measures found that numerous

researchers have used measures of job satisfaction and person-job fit as prox-
STANTON ET AL. 883
ies for work stress. Indeed, although older theories of job satisfaction make
little or no reference to stress (e.g., Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1976; Landy,
1978), modern theoretical formulations, such as affective events theory
(Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and person-organization fit (Kristof, 1996),
treat job attitudes, behavioral intentions, and experienced stress as interre-
lated outcomes. Because we designed the SIG to measure the affective tone
of stressful work rather than the frequency or amount of stressors or strains,
our measure was susceptible to overlap with other general job attitudes. In
both Study 1 and Study 2, we conducted analyses to ascertain whether our
measure differed from job satisfaction. In Study 1, the subscales of the SIG
displayed clear superiority over job satisfaction in their relationships with
another, multifaceted measure of stress. Although the Threat subscale of the
SIG had a fairly strong correlation with job satisfaction in Study 1, it also
explained unique variance in Intent to Quit. This evidence suggested a partial
but not complete operational overlap between job satisfaction and the Threat
subscale. In contrast, the Pressure subscale was only modestly correlated
with job satisfaction, and its high degree of overlap with the one-item mea-
sure of work stress indicates its operational distinction from job satisfaction.
The General Nature of the Measure
In Study 1 and Study 2, we examined the relationship of the SIG subscales

to a variety of self-report measures of work stressors. We also examined the
relationship of SIG subscale scores to a single-item measure of work stress.
Finally, in Study 3, we examined the relationship between SIG subscale
scores and a gross physiological measure reflecting chronic stress. The
Threat subscale of the SIG provided substantial evidence of its general nature
by a higher correlation with the single-item measure of work stress (r = .56)
than with any other measure in Study 1 (except SIG-I). The Threat subscale
correlated at a modest level with virtually all of the stressor measures in
Study 1 and with both of the stressor measures of Study 2. This pattern of cor-
relations suggested broad coverage of the construct of experienced work
stress without ties to specific stressors or strains.
Results for the Pressure subscale of the SIG were more difficult to inter-
pret. As above, the Pressure subscale correlated more highly with the single
item, general measure of stress (r = .70) than with any other measure in Study
1. This result provided encouraging evidence for the general nature of the
measure. In contrast to the Threat subscale, however, the Pressure subscale
also had a sizeable correlation with one particular stressor: time pressure.
There are at least two plausible explanations for this finding. One explanation
is that time pressure is a natural and substantial component of general job
stress for U.S. workers. A second explanation is that the SIG might contain a
disproportionate number of items representing the construct of time pres-
sure—that is, that the Pressure subscale of the SIG has substantial overlap
with measures of “general time pressure.” We used the data in Table 2 to
examine this explanation retrospectively by comparing patterns of correla-
tions. For JSI Time Pressure, the one-item stress measure, and SIG Pressure,
we compared the vectors of correlations (12 r values representing each
scale’s correlations with the other 12 measures in the study). The vectors of
correlations of SIG Pressure and the one-item measure matched nearly per-
fectly (r = .99). In contrast, the vectors for SIG Pressure (r = .66) and the one-
item measure (r = .68) matched imperfectly with the vector for the JSI Time
Pressure subscale. We offer this as informal evidence that time pressure may
be a substantial component of general job stress and that both the SIG and the
general one-item measure reflect the natural importance of this component.
Study 3 provided further evidence for the general nature of the Pressure
subscale. The consistent correlations between SIG Pressure and blood-pres-
sure reactivity suggest that the SIG scales reflect the affective tone of a
lengthy experience of stress.
Broad Applicability
The sample for Study 1 comprised individuals at all levels of a very large
organization, with a diverse set of job titles and responsibilities, and of differ-
ing ages and backgrounds. Study 2 respondents were much more homoge-
neous, but at the same time our use of a sample consisting primarily of mem-
bers of an ethnic minority added diversity to our overall study pool. Thus, the
SIG subscales appeared to be suitable for assessing job stress across
employee categories and organizational levels. Our findings also suggested
that individuals with limited reading skills could complete the SIG without
difficulty. In addition, thanks to the brevity of the measure and its simple
response format, perceptions of job stress can be collected quickly and inex-
pensively and with a minimum of space on a survey instrument.
Conclusions
Our development of the SIG subscales created a practically useful and

psychometrically sound two-factor measure of general job stress. Organiza-
tional researchers and practitioners may find these subscales useful for
assessing the stress levels of employees or as dependent measures to examine
the impact of organizational changes (e.g., layoffs, job redesign, stress reduc-
tion workshops) on employee job stress levels. Researchers in the area of
occupational stress might find SIG helpful for statistically modeling environ-
mental antecedents and consequences of job stress and for distinguishing
them from the antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction.
STANTON ET AL. 885
The two-factor SIG measure appears to improve on a single-item measure

of stress by tapping two different aspects of general work stress. An addi-
tional advantage over one-item measures is that the internal consistency of
the subscale scores can be assessed. The SIG provides broader construct cov-
erage and greater brevity than facet or component measures of stressors or of
strains. The SIG is also shorter and quicker to complete.
Clark and Watson (1995) commented that the work of refining a scale is
never complete, and we concur with this viewpoint. The three studies pre-
sented here provided a variety of pieces of validity evidence for SIG scores
but do not constitute an endpoint for the development of the scale. In particu-
lar, more work relating the SIG to acute and chronic symptoms of stress is
needed. Such work might also provide additional information about the
meaning of the two SIG subscales and insight into the aspects of the underly-
ing psychological processes that they tap.
References
Adams, G. A., & Jex, S. M. (1999). Relationships between time management, control, work-
family conflict, and strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 72-77.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review
of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Balzer, W. K, Kihm, J. A., Smith, P. C., Irwin, J. L., Bachiochi, P. D., Robie, C., Sinar, E. F., &
Parra, L. F. (1997). User’s manual for the Job Descriptive Index (JDI; 1997 Revision) and
the Job in General (JIG) scales. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.
Balzer, W. K., Smith, P. C., Kravitz, D. A., Lovell, S. E., Paul, K. B., Reilly, B. A., & Reilly, C. E.
(1990). User’s manual for the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) and the Job in General (JIG)
scales. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University.
Beehr, T. A., Johnson, L. B., & Nieva, R. (1995). Occupational stress: Coping of police and their
spouses. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 3-25.
Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Introduction. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing
structural equation models (pp. 1-9). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Breznitz, S., & Goldberger, L. (1993). Stress research at a crossroads. In L. Goldberger &
S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (2nd ed., pp. 1-7).
New York: Free Press.
Brodman, K., Erdman, A. J., Jr., Lorge, I., & Wolff, H. G. (1949). The Cornell medical index.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 140, 530-534.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale develop-
ment. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behav-
ioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cook, J. D., Hepworth, S. J., Wall, T. D., & Warr, P. B. (1981). The experience of work: A com-
pendium and review of 249 measures and their use. New York: Academic Press.
Cooper, C. L., Sloan, S. J., & Williams, S. (1988). Occupational stress indicator management
guide. Oxford, UK: NFER-Nelson.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents
and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578-589.
Fleming, I., & Baum, A. (1987). Stress: Psychological assessment. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 8(2), 117-140.
Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991). Work and stress and employee health. Journal of Man-
agement, 17, 235-271.
Glomb, T. M., Munson, L. J., Hulin, C. L., Bergman, M. E., & Drasgow, F. (1999). Structural
equation models of sexual harassment: Longitudinal explorations and cross-sectional gener-
alizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 14-28.
Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., Schneider, K. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F.
(1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 309-328.
Greller, M., & Parsons, C. K. (1988). Psychosomatic complaints scale of stress: Measure devel-
opment and psychometric properties. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48,
1051-1065.
Gupta, N., & Beehr, T. A. (1979). Job stress and employee behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 23, 373-387.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a the-
ory. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 16, 250-279.
Hanisch, K. A. (1992). The Job Descriptive Index revisited: Questions about the question mark.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 377-382.
Holt, R. R. (1982). Occupational stress. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of
stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 419-444). New York: Free Press.
Holt, R. R. (1993). Occupational stress. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of
stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects (2nd ed., pp. 342-367). New York: Free Press.
Ironson, G. H. (1992). Job stress and health. In C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.), Job
satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance (pp. 219-
239). New York: Lexington.
Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction
of a job in general scale: A comparison of global, composite and specific measures. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 74, 1-8.
Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1980). Stress and work. Glenville, IL: Scott, Foresman.
James, K., Lovato, C., & Cropanzano, R. (1994). Correlational and known-group comparison of
a workplace prejudice/discrimination inventory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24,
1573-1592.
Jiang, W., Babyak, M., Krantz, D. S., Waugh, R. A., Coleman, R. E., Hanson, M. M., Frid, D. J.,
McNulty, S., Morris, J. J., O’Connor, C. M., & Blumenthal, J. A. (1996). Mental stress-in-
duced myocardial ischemia and cardiac events. Journal of the American Medical Associa-
tion, 275, 1651-1656.
Johnson, S. M., Smith, P. C., & Tucker, S. M. (1982). Response format of the Job Descriptive In-
dex: Assessment of reliability and validity by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Journal of
Kim, J., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family, and
interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 32, 198-215.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.
Landy, F. J. (1978). An opponent process theory of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 63, 533-547.
Lautenschlager, G. J. (1989). A comparison of alternatives to conducting Monte Carlo analyses
for determining parallel analysis criteria. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 365-395.
STANTON ET AL. 887
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S. (1998). Fifty years of the research and theory of R. S. Lazarus. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Launier, R. (1978). Stress-related transactions between person and environ-
ment. In L. A. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds.), Perspectives in interactional psychology (pp. 287-
327). New York: Plenum.
Lyons, T. F. (1972). Turnover and absenteeism: A review of relationships and shared correlates.
Personnel Psychology, 25, 271-281.
Marrero, A. F., al’Absi, M., Pincomb, G. A., & Lovallo, W. R. (1997). Men at risk for hyperten-
sion show elevated vascular resistance at rest and during mental stress. International Journal
of Psychophysiology, 25, 185-192.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). Maslach burnout inventory: Research edition. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Mays, V. M., Coleman, L. M., & Jackson, J. S. (1996). Perceived race-based discrimination, em-
ployment status, and job stress in a national sample of Black women: Implications for health
outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 319-329.
Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of the precursors of
hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408-414.
Moos, R. H., Cronkite, R. C., Billings, A. G., & Finney, J. W. (1986). Health and daily living
form manual (Rev. ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Veterans Administration and Stanford University
Medical Center.
Murphy, L. R., Hurrell, J. J., Jr., Sauter, S. L., & Keita, G. P. (Eds.). (1995). Job stress interven-
tions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Quick, J. C., & Quick, J. D. (1984). Organizational stress and preventive management. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Quick, J. D., Horn, R. S., & Quick, J. C. (1987). Health consequences of stress. Journal of Orga-
nizational and Behavioral Management, 8(2), 19-36.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex orga-
nizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.
Rosenblum, B., Gansler, R., & Frank, R. (1990). RightWriter 3.1 [Computer program]. Water-
town, MA: Turning Point Software.
Roth, P. L., & BeVier, C. A. (1998). Response rates in HRM/OB survey research: Norms and cor-
relates, 1990-1994. Journal of Management, 24, 97-117.
Sandman, B. A. (1992). The measurement of job stress: Development of the Job Stress Index. In
C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about their
jobs and how it affects their performance (pp. 241-254). New York: Lexington.
Sandman, B. A., & Smith, P. C. (1988). The job stress index. Unpublished manuscript.
Sauter, S. L., & Murphy, L. R. (1995). Organizational risk factors for job stress. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts here? Personnel Psy-
chology, 36, 577-600.
Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of
sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal of
Schneiderman, N., Gellman, M., Peckerman, A., Hurwitz, B., Saab, P., Llabre, M., Ironson, G.,
Durel, L., Skyler, J., & McCabe, P. (in press). Cardiovascular reactivity as an indicator of risk
for future hypertension. In P. McCabe, N. Schneiderman, T. Field, & R. Wellens (Eds.),
Stress, coping, & cardiovascular disease (pp. 181-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schuler, R. S. (1980). Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations. Organiza-

tional Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 25, 184-215.
Smith, P. C. (1976). Behaviors, results, and organizational effectiveness: The problem of criteria.
In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 745-
775). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and
retirement: A strategy for the study of attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Toliver, S. D. (1998). Black families in corporate America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Veit, R., Brody, S., & Rau, H. (1997). Four-year stability of cardiovascular reactivity to psycho-
logical stress. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 20, 447-460.
Voegele, C., Jarvis, A., & Cheeseman, K. (1997). Anger suppression, reactivity, and hyperten-
sion risk: Gender makes a difference. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 19, 61-69.
Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as mi-
nority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 218-232.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Harkness, A. R. (1994). Structures of personality and their relevance
to psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 18-31.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of
the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18, pp. 1-74). Greenwich,
CT: JAI.

Educational and Psychological Measurement: A General Measure of Work Stress: The Stress in General Scale

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educational and Psychological Measurement: A General Measure of Work Stress: The Stress in General Scale

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educational and http://epm.sagepub.

A General Measure of Work Stress: The Stress in General Scale

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://epm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Oct 1, 2001

A GENERAL MEASURE OF WORK STRESS:

WILLIAM K. BALZER AND PATRICIA C. SMITH

LUIS FERNANDO PARRA

(e.g., job dissatisfaction, burnout, accidents, loss of productivity, absentee-

A Stress Model as a Foundation for Measurement

In 1966, Lazarus published an important volume that refocused stress

reports of strains may be a deficient or contaminated measure of work stress

Scale Development and Score Validation Strategies

Clark and Watson (1995) provided a thorough, theory-driven analysis of

A measure of stress but not dissatisfaction. Although a plethora of mea-

A general measure. Smith (1976) argued that understanding and predict-

A widely applicable measure. Breznitz and Goldberger (1993) discussed

Study 1: Item Generation and Selection

Procedure. To ensure sufficient breadth in our item pool, we used two

Participants. Employees of a large unit of an aerospace company, located

deliberate challenge to the discriminant validity of our stress measure scores,

Item distributions. We focused first on psychometric analysis of our pro-

Exploratory factor analysis. We needed to establish a suitable item-scor-

SIG-I (alpha = .88) SIG-II (alpha = .82)

Demanding 2.13 1.3 .61 Irritating 1.19 1.4 .55

Ease of completion. We conducted two analyses to assess whether work-

1. SIG-I (Pressure) 13.9 7.10 .88

Exploratory analysis. As a routine matter, we graphed a scatterplot depict-

Factor naming. Following from our analyses, we adopted tentative names

Procedure. The same list of 18 adjectives was administered to research

Participants. Of the 2,500 mailed packets, 574 usable questionnaires

1. SIG-I (Pressure) 12.33 6.93 .83

population. These scales were a 13-item measure of work-family balance

CFA. As a first step, we conducted a CFA to see if the factor structure

Model Description Chi-Square df GFI RMSR NFI NNFI

One-factor model 806.4 90 .80 .17 .73 .71

Curvilinearity analysis. As a final step, we reconfirmed the curvilinear

Study 3: Physiological Correlates of SIG

Participants. Study participants were recruited through advertisements

did offer a free multiday stress management workshop to volunteers. Thirty-

Procedure. Participants completed an extensive self-report instrument

A clear pattern emerged in the zero-order correlation matrix for Study 3

1. SIG-I (Pressure) 15.5 6.73 .90

ment using the relational, process-oriented approach to stress advocated by

Divergence From Job Satisfaction

Holt’s (1993) review of work stress measures found that numerous

The General Nature of the Measure

In Study 1 and Study 2, we examined the relationship of the SIG subscales

Our development of the SIG subscales created a practically useful and

The two-factor SIG measure appears to improve on a single-item measure

Schuler, R. S. (1980). Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations. Organiza-

You might also like