GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 1

Validation of a German Version of the Stress Overload Scale and Comparison With 1

Other Self-Report Measures of Stress 2

Peter Haehner1 *, Lena Sophie Pfeifer2 *, Maike Luhmann1, Oliver T. Wolf2, Leonard Frach3 3 4

* Shared first-authorship: Peter Haehner and Lena Sophie Pfeifer made equal contributions to this manuscript 5

1 Institute for Health and Development, Department of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany 6 2 Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany 7 3 Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University 8 College London, London, UK 9

10

11

Author Note. The study design was preregistered at https://osf.io/x52bq. The preregistration of the 12

present analyses, the data, and all R scripts can be retrieved from https://osf.io/kry82/. We have no 13

known conflict of interest to disclose. The contribution of LSP was supported by the DFG within 14

project B4 of the Collaborative Research Center (SFB) 874 “Integration and Representation of 15

Sensory Processes” [project number 122679504]. The authors thank Christian Bohnenkamp and Laura 16

Ribbehege for supporting the translation of the SOS. The authors acknowledge the support of Katrin 17

Heyers in generating the figures for the present publication. Correspondence concerning this article 18

should be addressed to Peter Haehner, Department of Psychology, Ruhr University Bochum, 19

Universitaetsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany. Email: peter.haehner@rub.de 20

21

Draft version February 23, 2022. This paper is submitted for publication and has not yet

been peer reviewed. We welcome your feedback and thank you for your interest. Please

do not copy without author's permission.

Abstract. The Stress Overload Scale (SOS; Amirkhan, 2012, 2018) was introduced as a

self-report measure of stress to overcome some limitations of other scales. Using an age-

heterogeneous convenience sample (N = 812), we aimed at validating a German version of

the SOS and at comparing it with existing stress measures. We did not replicate the original

two-factor structure of the SOS (event load and personal vulnerability) for a German long

version. However, adhering to the two-factor structure, we validated a short scale of the

SOS (SOS-S-G). Furthermore, we developed a unidimensional extra short scale

(SOS-XS-G) capturing stress holistically with four items only. The SOS-S-G and

SOS-XS-G achieved good reliability and validity that was comparable to existing stress

scales. Moreover, we found that manipulating the time frame of stress scales did not affect

their psychometric quality. We discuss how the SOS-S-G and SOS-XS-G may enrichen the

assessment repertoire of self-reported stress.

Keywords: Stress Overload Scale, Perceived Stress Scale, self-reported stress, stress assessment, time

frames, psychometrics

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 2

Validation of a German Version of the Stress Overload Scale and Comparison With 22

Other Self-Report Measures of Stress 23

Stress is a central construct in psychology and health sciences as it has been associated 24

with reduced physical health, reduced subjective well-being and the onset of mental and 25

physical disorders (Cohen et al., 2007; Epel et al., 2018; McEwen, 1998). While several 26

biomarkers have been used to assess stress objectively (e.g., cortisol) (Hellhammer et al., 2009), 27

the subjective dimension is a genuine and important aspect of stress that should not be omitted 28

for several reasons. First, subjective stress reports often correlate only weakly with objective 29

markers, suggesting that they comprise a separate component of the stress construct (Campbell 30

& Ehlert, 2012; Schlotz et al., 2008; Weckesser et al., 2019). Second, subjective stress reports 31

can reliably predict changes in physical health, mental health, and mortality (e.g., Novak et al., 32

2013; Redmond et al., 2013; Rueggeberg et al., 2012). Third, assessment of the subjective stress 33

dimension is easy, convenient and hence applicable in large cohorts (Amirkhan, 2012). 34

However, in order to advance stress research using self-report measures, it is important to 35

carefully validate and align stress scales with respect to their psychometric quality and 36

applicability in large and heterogeneous samples. In this paper, we aim at validating a German 37

translation of the Stress Overload Scale (SOS) and compare it with existing self-report measures 38

of stress. 39

The Stress Overload Scale 40

The SOS (Amirkhan, 2012) and its short form, the SOS-S (Amirkhan, 2018), have been 41

introduced as self-report measures of stress that overcome several weaknesses of previous stress 42

scales. First, most scales focused either on environmental demands or on personal resources 43

when assessing an individual’s stress level (for an overview, see Amirkhan, 2012). However, 44

from a theoretical point of view, stress can be conceptualized as a mismatch between 45

environmental demands and personal resources (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; McEwen, 2000). 46

The SOS acknowledges this idea and comprises two subscales assessing (a) event load and (b) 47

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 3

personal vulnerability, referring to the environmental demands and the personal resources, 48

respectively (Amirkhan, 2012, 2018). 49

Second, the SOS is intended to surpass the psychometric qualities of existing self-report 50

measures of stress as the psychometric properties of some existing measures have been 51

criticized in the literature (Dohrenwend, 2006; Hough et al., 1976). This also concerns the most 52

commonly used stress scales such as the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen et al., 1983) or 53

the Screening Scale of Chronic Stress (SSCS; Schulz & Schlotz, 1999) (Amirkhan, 2012; 54

Schmidt et al., 2020). The SOS was empirically developed and validated in a heterogeneous 55

community-based sample in the US. Both versions, the SOS and the SOS-S, showed good 56

construct validity and reliability and performed better than existing measures such as the PSS 57

(Amirkhan, 2012, 2018). The SOS further features convincing criterion validity as it reliably 58

predicts (1) physical symptoms (e.g., headaches) commonly associated with stress (Amirkhan 59

et al., 2018), (2) cortisol reactivity in response to an acute laboratory stressor, and (3) illness 60

after prolonged exposure to elevated stress (Amirkhan et al., 2015). The high and consistent 61

criterion validity across multiple criteria is a unique advantage of the SOS, as other measures 62

of self-reported stress often lack strong associations with (mental) health outcomes (Amirkhan 63

et al., 2015; Dohrenwend et al., 1984; Schmidt et al., 2020). 64

Third, stress scales must be evaluated regarding their practicability. Self-report 65

measures generally offer broad application and may be conveniently used in large samples as 66

for epidemiologic research or in longitudinal cohort studies with multiple measurements 67

(Amirkhan, 2012). The SOS features high practicability for several reasons. As already 68

mentioned, it was developed for a heterogeneous community-based sample which outperforms 69

established scales validated in small and homogenous samples only (Amirkhan, 2012). Second, 70

the SOS with 30 items (and in particular the SOS-S with 10 items) is shorter than other self-71

report measures of stress (e.g., the Daily Hassles Inventory or the Stress and Adversity 72

Inventory; Kanner et al., 1981; Slavich & Shields, 2018). 73

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 4

In sum, the SOS provides noteworthy advantages compared to other self-report 74

measures of stress and may thus be useful for stress research in different contexts. Beyond the 75

English version, the SOS so far has been validated for a Setswana-speaking community in South 76

Africa (Wilson et al., 2018) as well as for Chinese populations (Duan & Mu, 2018). Moreover, 77

an Arabic version of the SOS has been developed (Bashmi & Amirkhan, 2018). However, a 78

German translation of the SOS has not yet been validated. 79

Time Frame in the Instruction of Self-Report Measures 80

For the development of self-report measures, researchers have to consider the specific 81

time frame which the scale should use (Sunderland et al., 2020; Walentynowicz et al., 2018). 82

Typically, in the instructions of self-report measures, participants are required to evaluate the 83

following items with respect to a given time frame (e.g., the SOS uses the stress level of the 84

past week). However, other stress measures use different time frames (e.g., the PSS uses the 85

stress level of the past month; the SSCS uses the stress level of the past 3 months). Currently, 86

it is not clear whether the psychometric quality of self-report measures depends on specific time 87

frames and whether manipulating the time frames alters the psychometric quality of these 88

measures. Consequently, we aimed at specifying in how far the time frame of self-report 89

measures might impact the comparability among different stress scales. 90

In general, retrospective self-reports may be restricted by the participants’ capacity to 91

aggregate and to remember their experiences (Robinson & Clore, 2002; Weckesser et al., 2019). 92

This implies that self-reports might be prone to certain biases. These might originate from 93

current appraisal as well as from the accessibility of past contextual details (Geng et al., 2013; 94

Levine, 1997). Along these lines, it is important to examine whether the time frame in the 95

instruction of self-report measures is related to their psychometric properties and whether the 96

time frame can be modified according to the needs of a particular research project. For example, 97

Hartsell and Neupert (2019) manipulated the time frame of the SOS so that participants were 98

asked to evaluate their stress level with regard to the past year instead of the past week. 99

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 5

Manipulating time frames of stress scales may prove meaningful as it is conceivable that effects 100

of stress differ as a function of exposure time (Lam et al., 2019). Indeed, Amirkhan et al. (2018) 101

showed for the SOS that participants’ stress level predicted physical and behavioral symptoms 102

over different time frames. 103

The Current Study 104

The aim of the current study is threefold. First, we aimed to validate a German version 105

of the SOS and the SOS-S. Therefore, we translated the original English scale to German 106

language and tested the psychometric properties of the translated scale. Second, we aimed to 107

explore whether the psychometric quality of the SOS changes when varying the time frame in 108

the instruction. Third, we compared the criterion validity of the SOS with existing self-report 109

measures of stress while simultaneously accounting for the variability in time frames that these 110

different measures use. 111

Methods 112

We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, and all 113

manipulations. 114

Study Design 115

The present publication is based on data derived from the study “Well-being after one 116

year of the Corona pandemic”. The preregistration of the study design (including a complete 117

list of all measures) is provided at 118

https://osf.io/gx59m/?view_only=8b458847042640538fa4c85933008896. The study design 119

for this paper is illustrated in Figure 1. 120

People interested in the study first had to register for it. Registration included providing 121

informed consent and age verification (minimum: 18 years). After the registration, participants 122

were invited to two measurement occasions 1 week apart. At each measurement occasion, 123

participants rated several indicators of their well-being, stress, and health (including our 124

German translation of the SOS). At T2, we additionally manipulated the time frame used in the 125

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 6

instructions of the SOS and the SSCS. The SOS was presented with four different instructions 126

(past day, past week, past month, and past year). The SSCS was presented with its original 127

instruction (past 3 months) as well as with a different instruction (past month). The time frame 128

of the PSS (i.e., the third self-report measure of stress) was not modified as the 1-month time 129

frame could then be used to compare the psychometric properties of the different self-reported 130

measures of stress when all measures were used with the same instruction. 131

Sample 132

Based on the results of the English version of the SOS, power analyses suggested that 133

we needed approximately 500 participants for the psychometric evaluation of our German 134

translation (see study design preregistration for details). However, data collected in the study 135

“Well-being after one year of the Corona pandemic” are indented to be used in different projects 136

which partly required larger sample sizes (N = 1,000). Therefore, as preregistered, recruitment 137

was stopped after reaching the required sample size for all intended projects. Participants were 138

recruited online via social media (e.g., Facebook) and e-mail lists. 139

In total, N = 1,046 participants provided informed consent to participate in the study. To 140

ensure data quality, we excluded participants who completed measurement occasions in less 141

than 40% of the expected duration and who provided no or incorrect answers on instructed 142

response items (e.g., “To ensure data quality, please select the response option often”). 143

Applying these exclusion criteria led to a final sample size of N = 812 participants. The mean 144

age of our sample was 34.87 years (SD = 12.15). 72% of our sample were female. 145

Translation of the SOS 146

Translation of the SOS to German language was oriented on procedures that already 147

served to translate the scale to other languages (Duan & Mu, 2018; Wilson et al., 2018). 148

Moreover, we considered general recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of 149

questionnaires (e.g., using translation and back-translation procedures, reaching consensus on 150

translations through an expert committee, conducting pilot-testing of preliminary versions; 151

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 7

Beaton et al., 2000). The translation process is illustrated in Figure 2 and further described in 152

the supplementary material. Table 1 lists our translated items of the SOS alongside the original 153

English ones. 154

Measures 155

All measures used for the present study beyond the German translations of the SOS are 156

summarized in Table 2. 157

Statistical Analyses 158

R scripts, raw data, and a preregistration of our hypotheses and analyses are available at 159

https://osf.io/kry82/?view_only=10e0d601b23b4fb9b86a89e0bb733ce6. Deviations from the 160

preregistration are summarized in Table S1. 161

Aim 1: Psychometric Properties of our German SOS 162

We executed several steps to test the psychometric properties of our German translations 163

of the SOS. First, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses using the R package lavaan 164

(Rosseel, 2012). As for the original scales, we specified models employing a correlated two-165

factor structure and evaluated model fit using goodness-of-fit indices (acceptable: CFI > .95, 166

TLI > .95, RMSEA < .08; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). We used the indicator variable 167

method and the robust WLSMV estimator for model estimation. Second, we computed 168

Cronbach’s Alpha and the 1-week test-retest reliability. Third, to evaluate convergent, 169

discriminant, and criterion validity, we computed zero-order correlations between our German 170

translations of the SOS and the above-mentioned measures used to assess the validity of our 171

scales. 172

Aim 2: Time Frame Used in the Instructions of the SOS 173

To evaluate effects of varying time frames in the instruction of the SOS, we used the T2 174

data. First, we checked for measurement invariance between the different time frames as weak 175

measurement invariance constitutes a precondition for the following analyses. This 176

precondition was fulfilled (Table S2). Then, we compared Cronbach’s Alpha across different 177

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 8

time frames (Diedenhofen, 2016). Next, we compared convergent, discriminant, and criterion 178

validity of the SOS among different time frames by means of two nested regression models. In 179

Model A, we used the scores of our measures to assess the convergent, discriminant, or criterion 180

validity of the SOS as outcome and the SOS scores and the time frame as predictors. In Model 181

B, we additionally included interactions between the SOS scores and the time frames. The two 182

models were compared using an F-test for nested regression models. A significant test indicated 183

that the interaction significantly improved the model and consequently that the associations 184

between SOS scores and the scores of the different measures to assess the validity of the SOS 185

differed across time frames. 186

Aim 3: Criterion Validity of Different Stress Measures 187

We first computed zero-order correlations among the different stress measures (SOS, 188

PSS, SSCS) and the measures to assess the criterion validity (e.g., cognitive symptoms). Then, 189

we statistically compared these correlations using Hitter’s test for dependent correlations 190

(Diedenhofen & Musch, 2015). As the PSS and the SSCS were only assessed at T2, we used 191

T2 data for these analyses. We computed two sets of comparisons. The first set of comparisons 192

relied on data from participants who responded to the stress measures using their original time 193

frame. The second set relied on data from participants who responded to the stress measures 194

using a 1-month time frame. 195

Results 196

Aim 1: Psychometric Properties of our German SOS 197

The factorial validity of our translations was evaluated with confirmatory factor 198

analyses. Neither the SOS nor the SOS-S had acceptable fit using a correlated two-factor 199

structure (Table 3). Thus, as preregistered, we examined modification indices of the 200

confirmatory factor analyses. However, results suggested that the low fit was not due to specific 201

items (i.e., more than ten items were involved in modification indices larger than 10 for the 202

SOS; Perry et al., 2015). 203

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 9

Therefore, we conducted a broader evaluation of our translated items to check whether 204

other items than the ones comprising the English SOS-S may be used for a modified German 205

version of the SOS-S. Based on current recommendations for creating short scales, we 206

evaluated different criteria to select the best suited items for a German SOS-S (e.g., Rammstedt 207

& Beierlein, 2014; Stanton et al., 2002). First, we conducted three exploratory factor analyses 208

(using either one, two, or three factors1). Second, we estimated descriptive coefficients of item 209

quality (mean, standard deviation, item-total correlation). Third, we estimated test-retest 210

reliability and average convergent validity per item. Fourth, the two first authors independently 211

judged the content validity of each item. Fifth, we examined standardized loadings in 212

confirmatory factor analyses. Table S3 summarizes the results of this item evaluation. In the 213

German translation, some of the items seemed to not clearly belong to one subscale (e.g., 214

Item 13, Item 14, or Item 20 had medium-sized loadings > .25 on both factors in the exploratory 215

factor analysis; Costello & Osborne, 2005), while other items loaded only onto one factor (e.g., 216

Item 15, Item 23, or Item 24). We therefore selected ten items that clearly loaded onto one 217

factor for a modified German version of the SOS-S (henceforward called SOS-S-G, see Table 218

1). Furthermore, we decided to keep the items that did not clearly loaded onto one factor as they 219

seemed to be representative of the overall construct (e.g., these items had the highest loadings 220

using a one factorial model). Using these items, we created a new unidimensional extra-short 221

scale (henceforward called SOS-XS-G, see Table 1) measuring the overall construct stress 222

overload with only four items. In the following, we evaluated the psychometric properties of 223

these new scales. Formatted versions of both the SOS-S-G and the SOS-XS-G including the 224

German translations of the instructions can be found in the supplementary material. 225

First, using a correlated two-factor structure for the SOS-S-G and a one factorial 226

structure for the SOS-XS-G, both scales had acceptable factor validity as indicated by model 227

fit in confirmatory factor analyses. The models fitted the data well at T1 and at T2 (Table 3). 228

Second, Cronbach’s Alpha was in a good range (α > .70; Cortina, 1993) for both scales and for 229

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 10

the two subscales of the SOS-S-G (Table 4). The 1-week test-retest reliability was also good 230

(r > .70; Moosbrugger & Kelava, 2012) for the SOS-S-G (r = .82) and for the SOS-XS-G 231

(r = .81). Third, the SOS-S-G and the SOS-XS-G correlated significantly and in the expected 232

direction with our measures used to assess convergent validity such as life satisfaction or 233

depression (.14 ≤ |r| ≤ .74, all p-values < .001 Table 4). The size of these correlations was in 234

accordance with those found for the original scales (Amirkhan, 2012, 2018). Fourth, regarding 235

discriminant validity, the SOS-S-G (r = –.12) and the SOS-XS-G (r = –.12) correlated 236

significantly with social desirability. As hypothesized in the preregistration, both correlations 237

were only weak (i.e., r ≈ .10; Funder & Ozer, 2019) and of the same strength as those found for 238

the original scale (Amirkhan, 2012, 2018). Fifth, all correlations between the SOS-S-G and the 239

SOS-XS-G and our measures used to assess the criterion validity of the SOS (e.g., cognitive 240

symptoms) were significant and in the expected direction (.31 ≤ |r| ≤ .69, Table 4). 241

Aim 2: Time Frame Used in the Instructions of the SOS 242

Our second aim was to evaluate manipulations of the time frame of the SOS with respect 243

to its psychometric properties. For the SOS-S-G and the SOS-XS-G results were similar: 244

different time frames did not lead to significant changes in psychometric properties (Table 5). 245

The only exception was observed for the SOS-S-G, where the time frame significantly 246

moderated associations with life satisfaction. The association between the SOS-S-G and life 247

satisfaction was significantly less negative when using a 1-month time frame (b = −0.49, 248

SE = 0.10, 95% CI(b) = [−1.68; −0.29]) instead of the original 1-week time frame (b = −0.79, 249

SE = 0.12, 95% CI(b) = [−1.02; −0.56]). 250

Aim 3: Criterion Validity of Different Self-Report Measures of Stress 251

We compared the criterion validity of the SOS-S-G with the SSCS and the PSS-10 and 252

the SOS-XS-G with the PSS-4 by computing and comparing their zero-order correlations with 253

behavioral symptoms, cognitive symptoms, and self-rated health (Table 6). These correlations 254

(indicating the criterion validity of the different measures) did not significantly differ between 255

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 11

the SOS-XS-G and the PSS-4, between the SOS-S-G and the PSS-10, or between the SOS-S-G 256

and the SSCS. These results were observed for both instruction types (i.e., stress measures with 257

their original time frame and stress measures with a 1-month time frame). 258

Discussion 259

The present study had three aims. First, we evaluated the psychometric properties of our 260

German translations of the SOS and the SOS-S. We did not replicate the original two-factor 261

structure in our germen translations. Our results suggested other factorial approaches to 262

function better in German language: We created a new two-factorial short version of the SOS 263

(SOS-S-G, which comprises different items than the English SOS-S) and a unidimensional 264

extra short scale (SOS-XS-G). Both scales showed good psychometric properties. Second, we 265

compared the psychometric properties of the SOS-S-G and the SOS-XS-G among different time 266

frames used in their instructions. We found no significant differences among the different time 267

frames (besides one significant effect for life satisfaction). Third, we compared the criterion 268

validity among different self-rated measures of stress (SOS, PSS, SSCS). Again, no significant 269

differences were found (independent of the time frame used in the instructions of the stress 270

measures). 271

Psychometric Quality of our German SOS 272

Our German translation of the SOS did not replicate the exact two-factor structure for 273

the long version of the SOS and the original SOS-S. Results indicated that some items did not 274

clearly load onto one subscale in our German translation. One potential reason for this result 275

might be that our translation of the English items did not adequately reflect their actual meaning. 276

However, the current study applied an elaborate translation process implementing well-277

established recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures that are 278

thought to reduce such issues to a minimum (Beaton et al., 2000). Furthermore, translations of 279

the SOS to other languages faced similar problems with replicating the two-factor structure. 280

For example, Wilson et al. (2018) found a bad model fit for the long version of the SOS for a 281

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 12

translation to Setswana (South Africa) as well. Consequently, different items of the SOS may 282

be best suited in different countries in order to capture the theoretically implied two-factor 283

structure of the stress concept. 284

In line with this assumption, we were able to replicate the two-factor structure for the 285

SOS-S-G when using different items than in the English SOS-S. This approach resulted in good 286

overall psychometric quality which was comparable to existing self-report measures of stress. 287

The SOS-S-G may even surpass other inventories in several aspects. First, adhering to the two-288

factor structure, it acknowledges theoretical underpinnings on the concept of stress more 289

strongly than existing scales (Amirkhan, 2012). Second, compared to few measures that already 290

assess both, event load and personal vulnerability, the SOS-S-G is significantly shorter and was 291

validated in more heterogeneous samples for the English original version as well as for the 292

present German translation. For example, the PSS-10 has been criticized for being validated 293

mainly in college students or workers (Lee, 2012). However, contrary to our expectations and 294

contrary to the results for the English version of the SOS-S, the SOS-S-G did not show superior 295

criterion validity compared to the SSCS and the PSS-10. In summary, the SOS-S-G may 296

enrichen the assessment repertoire of self-reported measures of stress as it provides a well-297

validated instrument that assesses stress in line with its theoretical conceptualization (Lazarus 298

& Folkman, 1984; McEwen, 2000) while providing high practicability. 299

Furthermore, we developed the SOS-XS-G as a unidimensional self-report measure of 300

stress. This extra short scale waives the advantage of the theoretical derived two-factor structure 301

for sake of being even more economical by comprising only four items. We argue that the 302

SOS-XS-G still captures the concept of stress quite broadly as it comprises items from both 303

original subscales of the SOS and as it correlates strongly with both subscales of the SOS-S-G. 304

Compared to the PSS-4, the SOS-XS-G comes with the additional advantage that its 305

psychometric properties have now been tested in German language which (to the best of our 306

knowledge) is not the case for the PSS-4. 307

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 13

Time Frame Used in the SOS 308

With one exception, we did not find evidence for effects of different times frames of 309

self-report measures of stress on the psychometric properties of these measures. This result was 310

surprising as previous research has shown that participants use different strategies to reconstruct 311

past emotional experiences for short versus long retention intervals (Geng et al., 2013). One 312

interpretation of our findings may be that researchers can flexibly adopt the time frames used 313

in self-report measures of stress to match their research needs (e.g., assess recent vs. chronic 314

stress). However, research on participants’ capacity to integrate and aggregate past emotional 315

experiences also suggests that retrospective self-reports are prone to biases originating from 316

current appraisal amongst others (Levine & Safer, 2002; Robinson & Clore, 2002; Weckesser 317

et al., 2019). Thus, an alternative interpretation of our findings may be that self-reported stress 318

mainly reflects participants’ current stress level independent of the time frame in the 319

instructions. Consequently, psychometric properties would be independent of the time frame 320

because participants use the same information (i.e., their current stress level) to answer the 321

items. This second interpretation leads to the question whether and how such a bias in self-322

report measures of stress can be reduced. Solutions to this problem have not yet been 323

systematically studied. Still, theoretical approaches suggest that mental time travels, for 324

example, could serve to help participants re-access past emotional states (Debus, 2014; Roberts 325

& Feeney, 2009). Moreover, one might reduce the bias by first explicitly asking participants to 326

evaluate their current stress level (e.g., by means of an appropriate self-report measure) and 327

subsequently instructing participants to consciously dissociate from this current emotional state 328

when completing a following scale asking for past emotional experiences. 329

Limitations and Future Research 330

Our study had some limitations. First, even though our sample was more heterogeneous 331

than samples in other validation studies of stress-measures (e.g., Lee, 2012) it was still not 332

representative for the German adult population. In particular, the majority of our sample was 333

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 14

female and highly educated. This might have given rise to certain biases (e.g., the amount and 334

kind of stressors experienced by the participants) (Cohen & Janicki-Deverts, 2012). Related to 335

this, our study was conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic. Although data collection was 336

completed in a phase with rather minor restrictions in Germany (e.g., bars and restaurants were 337

open, larger sport events were allowed), we cannot rule out that our results were at least partly 338

influenced by pandemic conditions (Cooke et al., 2020; Kowal et al., 2020). For example, 339

during the pandemic people’s stress levels might have been increased compared to non-340

pandemic conditions, which in turn could have influenced the associations of the SOS with 341

other measures. 342

Second, we could not to replicate the two-factor structure of the long SOS for German 343

language. Furthermore, our SOS-S-G comprises different items than the English SOS-S. Thus, 344

comparisons with the English-speaking literature using the SOS might be impeded. Future 345

research might address the question whether the items that we selected for our German 346

SOS-S-G and SOS-XS-G can also be used in other languages (and maybe also in the English-347

speaking literature) in order to reach maximal comparability. 348

Conclusion 349

Stress can have important effects on mental and physical health. Therefore, it is 350

important that we measure stress accurately. The SOS has been introduced to overcome several 351

weaknesses of existing self-report measures of stress. In this study, we validated a German 352

translation of the SOS-S and developed a new extra short scale (SOS-XS-G). Both scales show 353

good psychometric properties and can be used to measure stress in large-scale samples. 354

355

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 15

Notes 356

1. The three-factor solution was dropped from further analyses since no item had a substantial 357

loading on the third factor. 358

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 16

References 359

Amirkhan, J. H. (2012). Stress overload: A new approach to the assessment of stress. 360

American Journal of Community Psychology, 49(1-2), 55–71. 361

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9438-x 362

Amirkhan, J. H. (2018). A Brief Stress Diagnostic Tool: The Short Stress Overload Scale. 363

Assessment, 25(8), 1001–1013. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116673173 364

Amirkhan, J. H., Landa, I., & Huff, S. (2018). Seeking signs of stress overload: Symptoms 365

and behaviors. International Journal of Stress Management, 25(3), 301–311. 366

https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000066 367

Amirkhan, J. H., Urizar, G. G., & Clark, S. (2015). Criterion validation of a stress measure: 368

The Stress Overload Scale. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 985–996. 369

https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000081 370

Bashmi, L., & Amirkhan, J. (2018). Constructing an Arabic language version of the Stress 371

Overload Scale (SOS). Arab Journal of Psychology, 5, 167–206. 372

Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the 373

process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191. 374

https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 375

Bruin, A. de, Picavet, H. S., & Nossikov, A. (1996). Health interview surveys. Towards 376

international harmonization of methods and instruments. WHO Regional Publications. 377

European Series, 58. 378

Campbell, J., & Ehlert, U. (2012). Acute psychosocial stress: Does the emotional stress 379

response correspond with physiological responses? Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(8), 380

1111–1134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.12.010 381

Cohen, S., & Janicki-Deverts, D. (2012). Who’s Stressed? Distributions of Psychological 382

Stress in the United States in Probability Samples from 1983, 2006, and 20091. 383

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6), 1320–1334. 384

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00900.x 385

Cohen, S., Janicki-Deverts, D., & Miller, G. E. (2007). Psychological Stress and Disease. 386

Journal of the American Medical Association, 298, 1685–1687. 387

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A Global Measure of Perceived Stress. 388

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396. 389

Cooke, J. E., Eirich, R., Racine, N., & Madigan, S. (2020). Prevalence of posttraumatic and 390

general psychological stress during COVID-19: A rapid review and meta-analysis. 391

Psychiatry Research, 292, 113347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113347 392

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. 393

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-394

9010.78.1.98 395

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four 396

recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-397

4868 398

Debus, D. (2014). ‘Mental Time Travel’: Remembering the Past, Imagining the Future, and 399

the Particularity of Events. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 5(3), 333–350. 400

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-014-0182-7 401

Diedenhofen, B. (2016). cocron: Statistical Comparisons of Two or more Alpha Coefficients. 402

http://comparingcronbachalphas.org 403

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 17

Diedenhofen, B., & Musch, J. (2015). Cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical 404

comparison of correlations. PloS One, 10(3), e0121945. 405

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121945 406

Dohrenwend, B. P. (2006). Inventorying stressful life events as risk factors for 407

psychopathology: Toward resolution of the problem of intracategory variability. 408

Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 477–495. 409

Dohrenwend, B. S., Dohrenwend, B. P., Dodson, M., & Shrout, P. E. (1984). Symptoms, 410

hassles, social supports, and life events: Problem of confounded measures. Journal of 411

Abnormal Psychology, 93(2), 222–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.93.2.222 412

Duan, W., & Mu, W. (2018). Validation of a Chinese version of the stress overload scale-413

short and its use as a screening tool for mental health status. Quality of Life Research : 414

An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and 415

Rehabilitation, 27(2), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1721-3 416

Eisenhart Rothe, A. von, Zenger, M., Lacruz, M. E., Emeny, R., Baumert, J., Haefner, S., & 417

Ladwig, K.-H. (2013). Validation and development of a shorter version of the 418

resilience scale RS-11: Results from the population-based KORA-age study. BMC 419

Psychology, 1(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/2050-7283-1-25 420

Epel, E. S., Crosswell, A. D., Mayer, S. E., Prather, A. A., Slavich, G. M., Puterman, E., & 421

Mendes, W. B. (2018). More than a feeling: A unified view of stress measurement for 422

population science. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 49, 146–169. 423

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2018.03.001 424

Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense 425

and Nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 426

156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202 427

Geng, X., Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zheng, Q. (2013). Hedonic Evaluation over Short and Long 428

Retention Intervals: The Mechanism of the Peak-End Rule. Journal of Behavioral 429

Decision Making, 26(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1755 430

Glaesmer, H., Grande, G., Braehler, E., & Roth, M. (2011). The German Version of the 431

Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 432

27(2), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000058 433

Hartsell, E. N., & Neupert, S. D. (2019). Chronic and Daily Stressors Along With Negative 434

Affect Interact to Predict Daily Tiredness. Journal of Applied Gerontology : The 435

Official Journal of the Southern Gerontological Society, 38(12), 1728–1745. 436

https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464817741684 437

Hellhammer, D. H., Wüst, S., & Kudielka, B. M. (2009). Salivary cortisol as a biomarker in 438

stress research. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34(2), 163–171. 439

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.10.026 440

Hough, R. L., Fairbank, D. T., & Garcia, A. M. (1976). Problems in the Ratio Measurement 441

of Life Stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 17(1), 70–82. 442

Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison of two modes 443

of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of 444

Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 1–39. 445

Klein, E. M., Brähler, E., Dreier, M., Reinecke, L., Müller, K. W., Schmutzer, G., Wölfling, 446

K., & Beutel, M. E. (2016). The German version of the Perceived Stress Scale - 447

psychometric characteristics in a representative German community sample. BMC 448

Psychiatry, 16, 159. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0875-9 449

Kliem, S., Beller, J., Tibubos, A. N., & Brähler, E. (2020). Normierung und Evaluation der 450

Messinvarianz der 8-Item-Kurzform der Center of Epidemiological Studies-451

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 18

Depression Scale (CES-D-8). Zeitschrift fur Psychosomatische Medizin und 452

Psychotherapie, 66(3), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.13109/zptm.2020.66.3.259 453

Kowal, M., Coll-Martín, T., Ikizer, G., Rasmussen, J., Eichel, K., Studzińska, A., 454

Koszałkowska, K., Karwowski, M., Najmussaqib, A., Pankowski, D., Lieberoth, A., & 455

Ahmed, O. (2020). Who is the Most Stressed During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Data 456

From 26 Countries and Areas. Applied Psychology. Health and Well-Being, 12(4), 457

946–966. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12234 458

Lam, J. C. W., Shields, G. S., Trainor, B. C., Slavich, G. M., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2019). 459

Greater lifetime stress exposure predicts blunted cortisol but heightened DHEA 460

responses to acute stress. Stress and Health, 35(1), 15–26. 461

https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2835 462

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer. 463

Lee, E.-H. (2012). Review of the psychometric evidence of the perceived stress scale. Asian 464

Nursing Research, 6(4), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2012.08.004 465

Levine, L. J. (1997). Reconstructing memory for emotions. Journal of Experimental 466

Psychology: General, 126(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.126.2.165 467

Levine, L. J., & Safer, M. A. (2002). Sources of bias in memory for emotions. Current 468

Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-469

8721.00193 470

McEwen, B. S. (1998). Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. New England 471

Journal of Medicine, 338, 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0013-0427.2003.00027.x 472

McEwen, B. S. (2000). The neurobiology of stress: From serendipity to clinical relevance. 473

Brain Research, 886, 172–189. 474

Moosbrugger, H., & Kelava, A. (Eds.). (2012). Springer-Lehrbuch. Testtheorie und 475

Fragebogenkonstruktion: Mit 66 Abbildungen und 41 Tabellen (2., aktualisierte und 476

überarbeitete Auflage). Springer. http://d-nb.info/101263051x/04 477

Novak, M., Björck, L., Giang, K. W., Heden-Ståhl, C., Wilhelmsen, L., & Rosengren, A. 478

(2013). Perceived stress and incidence of Type 2 diabetes: A 35-year follow-up study 479

of middle-aged Swedish men. Diabetic Medicine : A Journal of the British Diabetic 480

Association, 30(1), e8-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.12037 481

Perry, J. L., Nicholls, A. R., Clough, P. J., & Crust, L. (2015). Assessing Model Fit: Caveats 482

and Recommendations for Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Exploratory Structural 483

Equation Modeling. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 19(1), 484

12–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2014.952370 485

Petrowski, K., Kliem, S., Albani, C., Hinz, A., & Brähler, E. (2019). Norm values and 486

psychometric properties of the short version of the Trier Inventory for Chronic Stress 487

(TICS) in a representative German sample. PloS One, 14(11), e0222277. 488

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222277 489

Rahm, T., Heise, E., & Schuldt, M. (2017). Measuring the frequency of emotions-validation 490

of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) in Germany. PloS One, 491

12(2), e0171288. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171288 492

Rammstedt, B., & Beierlein, C. (2014). Can’t We Make It Any Shorter? Journal of Individual 493

Differences, 35(4), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000141 494

Redmond, N., Richman, J., Gamboa, C. M., Albert, M. A., Sims, M., Durant, R. W., Glasser, 495

S. P., & Safford, M. M. (2013). Perceived stress is associated with incident coronary 496

heart disease and all-cause mortality in low- but not high-income participants in the 497

Reasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke study. Journal of the 498

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 19

American Heart Association, 2(6), e000447. 499

https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.113.000447 500

Roberts, W. A., & Feeney, M. C. (2009). The comparative study of mental time travel. Trends 501

in Cognitive Sciences, 13(6), 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.03.003 502

Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Episodic and semantic knowledge in emotional self-503

report: Evidence for two judgment processes. Journal of Personality and Social 504

Psychology, 83(1), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.198 505

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of 506

Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/ 507

Rueggeberg, R., Wrosch, C., & Miller, G. E. (2012). The different roles of perceived stress in 508

the association between older adults’ physical activity and physical health. Health 509

Psychology : Official Journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American 510

Psychological Association, 31(2), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025242 511

Sarason, I. G., Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, J. M. (1978). Assessing the impact of life changes: 512

Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 513

Psychology, 46(5), 932–946. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.46.5.932 514

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the Fit of 515

Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness-of-Fit 516

Measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74. 517

Schlotz, W., Kumsta, R., Layes, I., Entringer, S., Jones, A., & Wüst, S. (2008). Covariance 518

between psychological and endocrine responses to pharmacological challenge and 519

psychosocial stress: A question of timing. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70(7), 787–796. 520

https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181810658 521

Schmidt, K., Enge, S., & Miller, R. (2020). Reconsidering the construct validity of self-522

reported chronic stress: A multidimensional item response theory approach. 523

Psychological Assessment, 32(11), 997–1014. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000829 524

Schulz, P., & Schlotz, W. (1999). Trierer Inventar zur Erfassung von chronischem Streß 525

(TICS): Skalenkonstruktion, teststatistische Überprüfung und Validierung der Skala 526

Arbeitsüberlastung. Diagnostica, 45(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1026//0012-527

1924.45.1.8 528

Slavich, G. M., & Shields, G. S. (2018). Assessing Lifetime Stress Exposure Using the Stress 529

and Adversity Inventory for Adults (Adult STRAIN): An Overview and Initial 530

Validation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 80(1), 17–27. 531

https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000534 532

Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., & Smith, P. C. (2002). Issues and strategies for 533

reducting the length of self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 167–194. 534

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00108.x 535

Stöber, J. (1999). Die Soziale-Erwünschtheits-Skala-17 (SES-17): Entwicklung und erste 536

Befunde zu Reliabilität und Validität. Diagnostica, 45(4), 173–177. 537

https://doi.org/10.1026//0012-1924.45.4.173 538

Sunderland, M., Batterham, P. J., Calear, A. L., Carragher, N., & Slade, T. (2020). The 539

psychometric properties of 30-day versions of the DSM-5 dimensional severity scales 540

for social anxiety disorder and panic disorder. Psychiatry Research, 291, 113229. 541

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113229 542

Walentynowicz, M., Schneider, S., & Stone, A. A. (2018). The effects of time frames on self-543

report. PloS One, 13(8), e0201655. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201655 544

Weckesser, L. J., Dietz, F., Schmidt, K., Grass, J., Kirschbaum, C., & Miller, R. (2019). The 545

psychometric properties and temporal dynamics of subjective stress, retrospectively 546

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 20

assessed by different informants and questionnaires, and hair cortisol concentrations. 547

Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1098. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37526-2 548

Wilson, A., Wissing, M. P., & Schutte, L. (2018). Validation of the Stress Overload Scale and 549

Stress Overload Scale–Short Form among a Setswana-speaking community in South 550

Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 48(1), 21–31. 551

https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246317705241 552

553

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 21

Figure 1. Illustration of the Study Design 554

Note. On two measurement occasions 1 week apart, participants completed the depicted questionnaires. These 555

questionnaires were used to evaluate (1) convergent validity, (2) discriminant validity, and (3) criterion validity of 556

the SOS, or (4) to compare the SOS with other stress scales. Questionnaires were given in randomized order. 557

Asterisks indicate that questionnaires were given with manipulated time frame. Full names of depicted 558

questionnaires are given in Table 2. Created with BioRender.com. 559

Figure 2. Translation Process of the SOS 560

Note. The translation of the SOS included several forward as well as backward translations. Discrepancies between 561

different versions were solved through discussion. Before applying the final translation, a preliminary version was 562

given to a test sample (N = 10). Created with BioRender.com.563

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 22

564

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 23

565

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 24

Table 1 566

Our German Translation of the SOS 567

No. German translation

(Original English item)

Subscale Included in

SOS-S

(English) SOS-S-G SOS-XS-G

2 angespannt (strained) EL

3 als hätten Sie den Anforderungen nicht genügen können (inadequate) PV X

4 überlastet (overextended) EL X X

5 zuversichtlich (confident) PV

7 als wären Sie nicht vorangekommen (no sense of getting ahead) PV X

8 als würden Sie in Aufgaben ersticken (swamped by your responsibilites) EL X X

9 chancenlos (that the odds were against you) PV X

10 als wäre nicht genug Zeit gewesen alles zu erledigen (that there wasn’t enough time to get to everything) EL X X

12 gehetzt (like you were rushed) EL X X

13 als hätten Sie nicht alles bewältigen können (like you couldn’t cope) PV X

14 als wäre Ihnen viel durch den Kopf gegangen (like you had a lot on your mind) EL

15 als wäre nichts richtig gelaufen (like nothing was going right) PV X X

17 machtlos (powerless) PV

18 als hätten Sie sich übernommen (overcommitted) EL

19 als wäre Ihr Leben „außer Kontrolle“ geraten (like your life was „out of control“) PV

20 als hätten sich die Dinge immer weiter angehäuft (like thing kept piling up) EL X X

22 als hätten Sie schnelle Entscheidungen treffen müssen (like you had to make quick decisions) EL

23 als hätten Sie sich gefragt: „Was kann noch alles schiefgehen?“ (like asking „what else can go wrong?”) PV X

24 als hätten Sie keine Zeit gehabt durchzuatmen (like you didn’t have time to breathe) EL X

25 als hätten die Dinge nicht noch schlechter werden können (like things couldn’t get worse) PV

27 als hätte es kein Entkommen gegeben (like there was no escape) PV X X

28 als hätten Sie eine schwere Last getragen (like you were carrying a heavy load) EL X X

29 als hätten Sie einfach aufgeben wollen (like just giving up) PV X X

30 als wäre zu viel in zu wenig Zeit zu tun gewesen (like there was „too much to do, too little time“) EL

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 25

Note. The item number correspond to the numbers used by Amirkhan (2012). However, the six filler items that were used in the original publication to mask the purpose of the 568

scale are not displayed here. That is also why not all numbers from 1 to 30 are displayed. German translations that are validated in the present paper are presented as SOS-S-G and 569

the SOS-XS-G. The German SOS-S-G comprises different items than the original English SOS-S. 570

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 26

Table 2 571

Measures Used for the Present Study 572

Purpose Construct Questionnaire

Convergent

validity

Depression Center of Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale,

(CES-D-8; Kliem et al., 2020)

Affect Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE;

Rahm et al., 2017)

Life satisfaction Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Glaesmer et al.,

2011)

Resilience Resilience Scale (RS-5; Eisenhart Rothe et al., 2013)

Life events Self-developed life event checklist (LEC) based on

the List of Life Experiences by Sarason et al. (1978)

Discriminant

validity

Social desirability Social Desirability Scale (SES-17; Stöber, 1999)

Criterion

validity

Self-rated health Scale by Bruin et al. (1996)

Behavioral

symptoms

Checklist translated from Amirkhan et al. (2018)

Cognitive

symptoms

Checklist translated from Amirkhan et al. (2018)

Comparison

with other stress

measures

Stress Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10 and PSS-4; Klein et

al., 2016)

Stress Screening Scale of Chronic Stress (SSCS; Petrowski

et al., 2019)

573

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 27

Table 3 574

Model Fit of the SOS and the SOS-S in the Confirmatory Factor Analyses 575

Model χ2(df) p RMSEA CFI TLI

SOS 2073.11(251) < .001 .095 .814 .796

SOS-S 553.62(34) < .001 .135 .861 .815

SOS-S-G (T1) 140.57(34) < .001 .064 .967 .957

SOS-XS-G (T1) 6.03(2) .049 .050 .997 .990

SOS-S-G (T2) 48.37(34) .052 .059 .967 .956

SOS-XS-G (T2) 3.55(2) .170 .080 .992 .976

Note. For the SOS, the SOS-S, and the SOS-S-G a correlated two-factor model was tested. For the SOS-XS-G, a 576

unidimensional measurement model was specified. Model fit at T2 evaluated only with participants that received 577

the original instruction of the SOS-S-G and SOS-XS-G. 578

579

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 28

Table 4 580

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations of the SOS-S-G, the SOS-XS-G and Our Measures of Convergent, Discriminant, and Criterion Validity 581

Construct M SD α Correlations with SOS-S-G Correlations with

SOS-XS-G Total score EL PV

SOS-S-G 2.53 0.92 .93

Event load (EL) 2.75 1.06 .91

Personal vulnerability (PV) 2.32 0.99 .90

SOS-XS-G 2.80 1.06 .88 .92*** .85*** .79***

Depression 2.21 0.65 .87 .74*** .54*** .79*** .72***

Life satisfaction 4.59 1.33 .90 –.47*** –.30*** –.55*** –.46***

Affective well-being 3.27 0.80 .93 –.71*** –.51*** –.77*** –.69***

Resilience 5.35 0.92 .77 –.37*** –.23*** –.43*** –.32***

Life event checklist 4.23 2.44 .14*** .12*** .14*** .17***

Social desirability 1.63 0.18 .65 –.12** –.08* –.13*** –.12**

Cognitive symptoms (T2) 73.31 22.77 .67*** .53*** .68*** .63***

Behavioral symptoms (T2) 62.18 17.41 .49*** .39*** .49*** .47***

Self-rated health (T2) 3.42 1.05 –.42*** –.31*** –.46*** –.44***

*** < .001, ** < .01, * < .05. 582

583

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 29

Table 5 584

Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the SOS-S-G and the SOS-XS-G for Different Time Intervals Used in the Instructions 585

Psychometric property SOS-S-G SOS-XS-G

Past day Past week Past month Past year Past day Past week Past month Past year

Cronbach’s Alpha .91 .93 .91 .90 .88 .90 .90 .89

χ2(3) = 3.26, p = .354 χ2(3) = 0.81, p = .846

Convergent validity

Depression F(3, 534) = 1.83, p = .140 F(3, 534) = 1.30, p = .275

Life satisfaction F(3, 534) = 2.65, p = .048 F(3, 534) = 1.71, p = .163

Affective well-being F(3, 534) = 1.03, p = .380 F(3, 533) = 1.02, p = .381

Resilience F(3, 534) = 0.94, p = .422 F(3, 534) = 0.88, p = .452

Life event checklist F(3, 534) = 0.31, p = .818 F(3, 534) = 0.68, p = .564

Discriminant validity

Social desirability F(3, 527) = 0.26, p = .855 F(3, 527) = 0.26, p = .855

Criterion validity

Cognitive symptoms F(3, 529) = 0.33, p = .801 F(3, 529) = 0.20, p = .897

Behavioral symptoms F(3, 519) = 1.36, p = .255 F(3, 519) = 0.78, p = .505

Self-rated health F(3, 534) = 0.17, p = .920 F(3, 534) = 0.02, p = .997

Note. Cronbach’s Alpha was compared among different time frames using χ2-tests as implemented in R package cocron (Diedenhofen, 2016). Convergent, discriminant, and 586

criterion validity were compared using model comparisons of nested regression models: We compared a model including only the main effects of the SOS scores and a variable 587

indicating the different time frames with a model that additionally included their interactions. A significant model comparison indicated that the association between the SOS and 588

the different measures to assess the validity of the SOS differed across the different time frames. 589

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 30

Table 6 590

Comparison of the Correlations Between the Stress Measures (SOS-S-G, SOS-XS-G, PSS-10, PSS-4, and SSCS) and the Measures Used to Assess 591

the Criterion Validity (Cognitive Symptoms, Behavioral Symptoms and Self-Rated Health) 592

Measure of criterion

validity

SOS-S-G PSS-10 SSCS PSS-10 vs. SOS-S-G Comparison SSCS vs.

SOS-S-G

SOS-XS-G PSS-4 PSS-4 vs.

SOS-XS-G

Original instruction

Cognitive

symptoms

.78 .79 .76 z = –0.27, p = .786 z = 0.48, p = .628 .73 .73 z = –0.05, p = .958

Behavioral

symptoms

.62 .59 .59 z = 0.66, p = .510 z = 0.66, p = .508 .56 .57 z = –0.18, p = .859

Self-rated health –.48 –.56 –.43 z = 1.63, p = .103 z = –0.83, p = .409 –.48 –.55 z = 1.31, p = .192

1-month instruction

Cognitive

symptoms

.74 .77 .78 z = –1.04, p = .299 z = –1.36, p = .175 .69 .73 z = –1.22, p = .224

Behavioral

symptoms

.62 .62 .61 z = 0.01, p = .992 z = 0.17, p = .865 .56 .58 z = –0.38, p = .700

Self-rated health –.48 –.56 –.48 z = 1.86, p = .063 z = –0.07, p = .945 –.49 –.51 z = 0.27, p = .790

593

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 31

Supplementary Material

Validation of a German Version of the Stress Overload Scale and Comparison With

Other Self-Report Measures of Stress

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 32

Translation process of the SOS

The translation of the SOS to German language was oriented on the procedures that had

been used to translate the scale to Chinese (Duan & Mu, 2018) and Swetswana (Wilson et al.,

2018). Moreover, we implemented general recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation

of questionnaires as provided by Beaton et al. (2000). First, a forward-translation (English to

German) of the SOS was conducted independently by [BLINDED FOR REVIEW] and

[BLINDED FOR REVIEW]. A synthesis of these versions was achieved after in-depth

discussion of discrepancies. The result was a second, merged version which was then given to

two independent bilinguals both living in the UK. Both of them were naïve to study purposes

and outcomes measures and did not know the original SOS. In particular, one of the bilinguals

had no medical or psychological background whereas the other was a researcher studying

related psychological topics. Hence, these two bilinguals were able to provide two independent

back-translations (German to English) of the second version. Finally, these two back-

translations were compared to the original English version of the SOS in order to further adapt

the German translation. Decisions were made by a committee consisting of the two forward-

translators [BLINDED FOR REVIEW] and [BLINDED FOR REVIEW], the psychologist

back-translator, and an external language expert. Adaptations of the German translation were

made in order to reach the best compromise between (1) semantic, (2) idiomatic, (3) experiential

as well as (4) conceptual equivalence as suggested by Beaton et al. (2000). After a final consent

was achieved, the committee-reviewed German version of the SOS was piloted in a sample of

ten people. Each participant completed the German SOS and was asked to comment on the

items’ comprehensibility. After this pretesting, minor adaptations were made to develop the

final German version of the SOS.

With respect to the response scale of the SOS, we decided to deviate from the original

English version in that all five response options were labeled (in the original SOS, only the

lowest and the highest option are labeled as 1 = “not at all” and 5 = “a lot”). This decision was

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 33

based on empirical evidence showing that the psychometric quality of self-report measures is

generally heightened when all response options are labeled (Menold & Bogner, 2015).

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 34

German Version of the Short Stress Overload Scale (SOS-S-G)

- Ein Fragebogen zu tagtäglichen Gefühlen -

Untenstehend finden Sie 10 Fragen zu Ihren Gefühlen in der vergangenen Woche. Bitte

beantworten Sie alle Fragen, auch, wenn einige ähnlich klingen mögen. Jede Frage benennt

ein Gefühl und hat fünf Antwortoptionen. Sie sollten die Option wählen, die am besten

beschreibt, wie sehr Sie dieses Gefühl in der letzten Woche gefühlt haben. Bitte seien Sie so

ehrlich wie möglich. Es gibt keine richtigen oder falschen Antworten und Ihre Antworten

werden vertraulich behandelt.

Wie haben Sie sich IN DER LETZTEN WOCHE gefühlt?

gar nicht wenig teil-weise über-

wiegend

völlig

1. überlastet

2. als wären Sie nicht vorangekommen

3. als würden Sie in Aufgaben

ersticken

4. als wäre nicht genug Zeit gewesen

alles zu erledigen

5. gehetzt

6. als wäre nichts richtig gelaufen

7. als hätten Sie sich gefragt: „Was

kann noch alles schiefgehen?“

8. als hätten Sie keine Zeit gehabt

durchzuatmen

9. als hätte es kein Entkommen

gegeben

10. als hätten Sie einfach aufgeben

wollen

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 35

German Version of the Extra Short Stress Overload Scale (SOS-XS-G)

- Ein Fragebogen zu tagtäglichen Gefühlen -

Untenstehend finden Sie 4 Fragen zu Ihren Gefühlen in der vergangenen Woche. Bitte

beantworten Sie alle Fragen, auch, wenn einige ähnlich klingen mögen. Jede Frage benennt

ein Gefühl und hat fünf Antwortoptionen. Sie sollten die Option wählen, die am besten

beschreibt, wie sehr Sie dieses Gefühl in der letzten Woche gefühlt haben. Bitte seien Sie so

ehrlich wie möglich. Es gibt keine richtigen oder falschen Antworten und Ihre Antworten

werden vertraulich behandelt.

Wie haben Sie sich IN DER LETZTEN WOCHE gefühlt?

gar nicht wenig teil-weise über-

wiegend

völlig

1. überlastet

2. als hätten Sie nicht alles bewältigen

können

3. als hätten sich die Dinge immer

weiter angehäuft

4. als hätten Sie eine schwere Last

getragen

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 36

Deviations from Preregistration

Table S1

Deviations From the Preregistration and Reasons for These Deviations

Preregistered plan Deviation from preregistration Reason for deviation

„Conducting an exploratory factor analyses to

identify whether the whole measurement model

needs to be changed.“

Precise procedure for creating

our new German scales (SOS-S-

G and SOS-XS-G)

For the case that the whole measurement model needs to be

changed the preregistration was not detailed enough. We included

a literature-based procedure to create our new short scales that

relies on more than just exploratory factor analyses.

„ To test this, we will compute 80% confidence

intervals for the respective correlations. The results

will be interpreted to be in line with our hypothesis

if these confidence intervals include values between

|ρ| = .20 and |ρ| = .50.“

We did calculate these

confidence intervals but did not

report them in the paper and do

also not interpret them.

We later noticed that for the original scales different correlations

were reported in different publications. Therefore, the preregistered

ranges did not seem reasonable to us.

We hypothesized to find different associations of

the personal vulnerability subscale and the event

load subscale with the resilience measure and the

life event checklist.

Did not include these tests in the

present paper

We were not able to replicate the original factor structure.

Therefore, we decided to drop the respective comparisons between

the subscales and our measures of convergent validity (also due to

space reasons). However, in the provided R scripts the respective

analyses can be found. For the personal vulnerability subscale, the

results were as expected. For the event load subscales, no

significant differences were found.

Aim 2: It was preregistered that we compare

convergent and criterion validity between the

different time frames in the instructions

Aim 2: We additionally also

compared the discriminant

validity between the different

time frames in the instructions

We forgot to preregister that the discriminant validity can also be

compared between the different time scales.

Aim 3: We planned to compute multilevel models

with stress measures nested in participants to test

whether the associations between stress and our

measures of criterion validity differed between the

different stress measures

Aim 3: We computed zero-order

correlations between the stress

measures and our measures of

criterion validity. Then, we

compared these correlations

statistically.

The planned multilevel models did not converge.

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 37

Measurement Invariance Among the Different Time Frames of the SOS

We evaluated measurement invariance among the different time frames of the SOS

using a stepwise approach. First, we evaluated model fit of the configural model (acceptable:

RMSEA < .08, CFI > .95). Then we used model comparisons to check for higher levels of

invariance (configural vs. weak, weak vs. strong). We assumed the more restricted model to be

adequate if the change in model fit was small (ΔCFI > −.010 and ΔRMSEA < .015; Putnick &

Bornstein, 2016). We specified the respective models using indicator variable method and used

robust WLSMV-estimator for model estimation.

Table S2

Results Regarding Measurement Invariance of the Different Time Frames in the Instruction of

the SOS-S-G and SOS-XS-G

Scale Model RMSEA ΔRMSEA CFI ΔCFI Δχ2 df p

SOS-S-G Configural .060 .968

Weak .048 -.011 .975 .007 27.60 24 .277

Strong .050 .002 .969 -.006 35.49 24 .061

SOS-XS-G Configural .055 .996

Weak .000 -.055 1.000 .004 8.23 9 .503

Strong .048 .048 .991 -.009 13.92 9 .125

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 38

Results of the Item Evaluation of Our German Translations of the SOS

Table S3

Overview on Item Statistics, Loading, Their Content Validity, and Their Inclusion in the SOS-S, SOS-S-G, and SOS-XS-G

# Subscale M SD rtot rT1T2 EFA

(1 factor)

EFA

(2 factors)

CFA

(1 factor)

CFA

(2 factors)

Content

(total score)

Content

(subscale)

rcrit SOS-S SOS-S-G SOS-XS-G

2 EL 3.20 1.10 .74 .62 0.76 0.46 / 0.37 0.84 0.88 2.5 1.5 .65

3 PV 2.60 1.27 .74 .58 0.76 0.55 / 0.27 0.96 1.00 4.0 4.0 .63 X

4 EL 2.88 1.25 .79 .65 0.80 0.21 / 0.69 1.01 1.07 5.0 3.0 .62 X X

5 PV 2.88 1.02 .62 .61 0.65 0.78 / -0.10 0.65 0.69 1.5 2.0 .70

7 PV 2.86 1.22 .68 .56 0.71 0.60 / 0.16 0.86 0.90 3.0 3.0 .60 X

8 EL 2.65 1.26 .71 .60 0.72 -0.06 / 0.89 0.93 0.99 4.5 4.0 .44 X X

9 PV 1.99 1.13 .67 .61 0.69 0.90 / -0.17 0.76 0.82 2.5 2.5 .64 X

10 EL 2.89 1.26 .63 .51 0.63 -0.25 / 0.99 0.81 0.87 4.5 4.5 .32 X X

12 EL 2.66 1.15 .68 .54 0.68 0.00 / 0.77 0.80 0.85 3.0 2.0 .45 X X

13 PV 2.77 1.21 .79 .60 0.81 0.38 / 0.51 0.97 1.01 5.0 3.0 .61 X

14 EL 3.66 1.08 .61 .54 0.62 0.35 / 0.32 0.67 0.71 2.5 3.0 .52

15 PV 2.23 1.14 .75 .60 0.77 0.80 / 0.02 0.87 0.92 2.0 2.5 .68 X X

17 PV 2.56 1.29 .71 .59 0.73 0.89 / -0.11 0.93 0.98 1.5 3.0 .66

18 EL 2.45 1.18 .70 .55 0.71 0.18 / 0.61 0.84 0.88 4.5 3.5 .50

19 PV 2.09 1.23 .72 .65 0.74 0.86 / -0.07 0.89 0.94 1.5 2.5 .67

20 EL 2.88 1.24 .76 .58 0.77 0.25 / 0.61 0.96 1.01 4.5 4.5 .55 X X

22 EL 2.33 1.08 .45 .41 0.45 0.06 / 0.44 0.50 0.53 3.0 3.5 .27

23 PV 2.21 1.23 .67 .54 0.69 0.71 / 0.03 0.83 0.88 2.0 2.0 .59 X

24 EL 2.69 1.28 .68 .55 0.68 0.00 / 0.78 0.88 0.94 4.0 4.0 .49 X

25 PV 1.94 1.10 .67 .58 0.69 0.79 / -0.06 0.74 0.79 1.5 2.0 .60

27 PV 2.18 1.26 .68 .58 0.70 0.75 / 0.00 0.87 0.92 2.0 2.5 .61 X X

28 EL 2.70 1.28 .79 .59 0.80 0.62 / 0.24 1.03 1.07 3.0 4.0 .68 X X

29 PV 2.13 1.26 .73 .67 0.75 0.83 / -0.03 0.93 0.99 2.5 4.0 .72 X X

30 EL 2.93 1.26 .61 .60 0.61 -0.28 / 1.01 0.77 0.83 5.0 4.0 .31

Note. rtot = item-total correlation, rT1T2 = item-wise test-retest correlation, EFA = loading in exploratory factor analyses, CFA = loadings in confirmatory factor analyses,

Content = ratings of content validity, rcrit = item-wise correlations with our measures of criterion validity

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 39

References

Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the

process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191.

https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014

Diedenhofen, B. (2016). cocron: Statistical Comparisons of Two or more Alpha Coefficients.

http://comparingcronbachalphas.org

Duan, W., & Mu, W. (2018). Validation of a Chinese version of the stress overload scale-

short and its use as a screening tool for mental health status. Quality of Life Research :

An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and

Rehabilitation, 27(2), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1721-3

Menold, N., & Bogner, K. (2015). Gestaltung von Ratingskalen in Fragebögen.

https://doi.org/10.15465/gesis-sg_015

Wilson, A., Wissing, M. P., & Schutte, L. (2018). Validation of the Stress Overload Scale and

Stress Overload Scale–Short Form among a Setswana-speaking community in South

Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 48(1), 21–31.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246317705241

GERMAN VERSION OF THE STRESS OVERLOAD SCALE 40