Validation of the 4-Item and 10-Item Uncertainty Stress Scale in a Community-Based Sample of Chinese Adults

Dan Wu; Tingzhong Yang; Fabian Herold; Daniel L Hall; Notger Mueller; Albert Yeung; Arthur F Kramer; Tianyou Guo; Liye Zou

doi:10.2147/PRBM.S379180

Validation of the 4-Item and 10-Item Uncertainty Stress Scale in a Community-Based Sample of Chinese Adults

Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2022 Sep 26:15:2803-2813. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S379180. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Dan Wu¹, Tingzhong Yang², Fabian Herold³, Daniel L Hall^{4

5}, Notger Mueller³, Albert Yeung^{4

6}, Arthur F Kramer^{7

8}, Tianyou Guo¹, Liye Zou¹

Affiliations

¹ Body-Brian-Mind Laboratory, School of Psychology/The Shenzhen Humanities & Social Sciences Key Research Bases of the Center for Mental Health, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, 518060, People's Republic of China.
² Women's Hospital/Center for Tobacco Control Research, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, 310058, People's Republic of China.
³ Research Group Degenerative and Chronic Diseases, Movement, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, 14476, Germany.
⁴ Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
⁵ Mongan Institute, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
⁶ Depression Clinical and Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
⁷ Beckman Institute, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
⁸ Center for Cognitive & Brain Health, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

Abstract

Purpose: The objectives of this study were to examine the psychometric properties of the Uncertainty Stress Scale (USS) and to compare the usefulness of two versions of the scale (USS-4 and USS-10) among a large community-based sample of Chinese adults.

Participants and methods: The Uncertainty Stress Scale was validated in 904 community residents (mean age: 32.71 ± 10.99; male: 41.7%) through an online survey conducted in February 2020. Psychometric properties of reliability (Cronbach's alpha), construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis), and criterion validity (correlation and ROC curve analyses) were evaluated using established benchmarks. To validate the USS, we used the Chinese version of the Perceived Stress Scale (CPSS). In addition, sensitivity, specificity, and suitable cutoff values of the two versions of USS were determined.

Results: Both versions of the USS had high internal consistency (USS-10: 0.941; USS-4: 0.851). Confirmatory factor analyses supported a one-factor structure for both measures. Both USS-4 and USS-10 scores were significantly positively correlated with CPSS scores, indicating acceptable criterion validity.

Conclusion: The findings of the current study confirmed that the psychometric properties of two Chinese versions of USS are acceptable. Furthermore, the 4-item USS was as effective as the 10-item USS for the measurement of uncertainty stress in our community-based sample of Chinese adults suggesting that the USS-4 is a time-efficient alternative to the USS-10 which can be used when the circumstances require a time-efficient instrument (eg, in epidemiological studies with a large test battery).

Keywords: Community-based Sample; Uncertainty Stress Scale; Validation.

Grants and funding

This study was partially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province of China (Grant No. 2018A030307002), the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 31871115), and funding from the Shenzhen Humanities & Social Sciences Key Research Bases of the Center for Mental Health, Shenzhen University.