Scaling of life change: Comparison of direct and indirect methods

Ruch, Libby O.; Holmes, Thomas H.

doi:10.1016/0022-3999(71)90011-0

Cited by 57 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was due in part to some idiosyncratic responses to items by a few of the subjects, producing large standard deviations. (Masuda and Holmes [6] have utilized the geometric mean rather than arithmetic mean in order to reduce the size of the standard deviation. We used the arithmetic mean.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This group subsequently reported a high degree of correlation between the relative ranking of these items by groups of subjects from widely differing backgrounds (2)(3)(4)(5)(6). They found coefficients of correlation in excess of 0.90 for a variety of personal and demographic variables including age, sex and nationality, and a correlation of 0.82 in comparing Black and Caucasian Americans.…”

mentioning

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Schedule of Recent Experiences

Mendels

Weinstein

1972

Psychosomatic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One hundred and eighty-seven subjects participated in a study to evaluate the reliability of the weights assigned to individual items in the Schedule of Recent Experiences (SRE). There was a high correlation between this group's responses and the responses originally reported by Holmes and Rahe, in spite of differences in age and education between the respondents. The correlation remained very high when the study was repeated after a 1-year interval. This finding offers support for the usefulness of this instrument in evaluating the relationship between life events and other variables for groups of subjects.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 86%

The Schedule of Recent Experiences

Mendels

Weinstein

1972

Psychosomatic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is assumed that persons will not vary widely in the accuracy of their responses to questions about serious, real life events. The scaling procedures seem reliable in that different populations yield high correlations on judgments of item intensity (r values usually greater than 0.90) (11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26), and on test-retest completion of forms (r values usually over 0.64] (12).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life Event Questionnaires for Measuring Presumptive Stress

Horowitz

Schaefer

Hiroto

et al. 1977

Psychosomatic Medicine

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cumulative stress from the impact of life events has become an important variable in psychosomatic and psychological research. This article provides both short and long life events questionnaires that add to incidence information the remoteness or recency in time of a given experience. In the weight assignment system that leads to a single presumptive stress score, events remote in time have less influence than recent events. The reliability of weight assignment was checked in subject groups that differed by sex, age, and status. Women weighted life events as more stressful than did men; other differences in groups were less important. In spite of the sex differential, review of these data suggests use of the same weight assignments for all subgroups rather than differential weighting by sex and age. Reliability was also checked by test and retest methods: in contrast to common sense expectation, a disappointingly low level of reliability was found. The implications for investigative use of life events questionnaires are discussed.

show abstract

“…In a modified version of this framework, the absence of a bump for negative events might be due to a reduced rehearsal of negative events in conversations, owing to social censure (Harber & Pennebaker, 1992) or to the fact that negative events are followed by more instability than are positive events (Berntsen & Rubin, 2002;Ruch, Chandler, & Harder, 1980;Ruch & Holmes, 1971).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%