Method Effects and Measurement Invariance Testing for Korean Stress Mindset Scale

Abstract

‘스트레스=부정적’이라는 인식이 팽배함에도 불구하고 스트레스의 효과성에 대한 개인의 관점은 차이가 있다. 어떤 사람은 스트레스는 무조건 부정적이라고 믿는 반면 어떤 사람은 스트레스를 통해 성장․발달할 수 있다고 믿는다. 이처럼 스트레스의 효과성에 대한 개인의 신념을 스트레스 마인드셋이라 한다. 본 연구에서는 미국인을 대상으로 Crum과 동료들이 개발한(2013) 스트레스 마인드셋 척도가 국내 다양한 직업군에서 사용될 수 있는지를 요인구조, 방법효과, 측정동일성 검증을 통해 살펴보았다. 대학생과 금융, 의학, 교육 분야에 종사하는 성인 531명을 대상으로 자료를 수집하였으며, 연구결과는 다음과 같다. 확인적 요인분석 결과, Crum과 동료들이 제안한 8개 문항으로 구성된 측정모형의 적합도는 양호하지 않았으며, 방법효과를 통제한 모형에서도 적합도가 좋지 않았다. 스트레스의 부정적인 효과성을 측정하는 4문항으로 구성된 도구(Stress Mindset-N4)와 긍정적인 효과성을 측정하는 4문항으로 구성된 도구(Stress Mindset-P4)의 적합도는 양호한 것으로 나타났으며, 그중에서도 Stress Mindset-N4의 적합도가 더 높았다. Stress Mindset-N4와 P4 도구의 직업별 측정동일성 검증에서는 전자는 형태, 요인부하량, 절편 동일성이 지지 되었으며, 후자는 형태, 요인부하량 동일성이 지지 되었다. 더불어 두 도구 모두 지각한 스트레스를 유의하게 예측하였다. 본 연구결과가 가지는 이론적, 실증적 의의를 논의하였다.

Psychometric Properties and Validation of the Korean Version of Stress Mindset Measure

“…This also supports the conceptualization that the stress mindset is a spectrum between enhancing and debilitating mindsets rather than two opposing beliefs functioning in parallel (Crum et al, 2013; Keech et al, 2021). While Park (2022)’s results suggested that the use of only four negatively- or positively-worded items (i.e., measuring either debilitating or enhancing mindset) would be an alternative of applying the full SMM items, this approach may force researchers to separate one mindset from the other, disregarding the initial concept of stress mindset. Therefore, measuring both types of mindsets with consideration for the wording effect as the current findings suggested, rather than splitting the measure into two, would be recommendable.…”

“…Although it was the first study to investigate the psychometric properties of the SMM in a Korean sample, it was not free from limitations. Park (2022) interpreted the results to reflect the independence between the negative perception of stress and the positive perception of stress. However, in the two factor model, the negative perception construct and the positive perception construct showed a high correlation ( r = 0.86, p < .001), questioning the independent nature of the relationships.…”

“…To date, researchers have investigated the SMM with community samples (e.g., Karampas et al, 2020; Mierzejewska-Floreani et al, 2022). Although Iwamoto et al (2020) and Park (2022) included undergraduate students in their samples, the current study aimed to investigate emerging adults’ stress belief including undergraduate students but not limited to them. Emerging adulthood is characterized by instability as emerging adults have not yet made long-term decisions in relationships and work (Arnett et al, 2014).…”

“…In South Korea, Park (2022) has recently examined the factor structure of the SMM. The study (Park, 2022) reported that the one-factor structure, two-factor structure, and two-factor models considering method effects showed unsatisfactory fits. Instead, Park (2022) found adequate fits for a model with four negatively worded items and a model with four positively worded items.…”

“…The study (Park, 2022) reported that the one-factor structure, two-factor structure, and two-factor models considering method effects showed unsatisfactory fits. Instead, Park (2022) found adequate fits for a model with four negatively worded items and a model with four positively worded items. Thus, Park (2022) suggested to use a measure consisting of four negative items which showed superior fits to a model consisting of four positive items.…”