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: [email protected] 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 This paper is submitted for publication and has not yet
been peer reviewed.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 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