A Pilot Psychometric Study on the Validation of the Older Women’s Non-Medical Stress Scale (OWNMSS) on an Ethnically Diverse Sample

Introduction: Older women often experience various types of stressors, including the death of a spouse and associated financial stress (often with a lack of social support), emotional stress due to factors such as caregiving and being single, and the challenges of the aging process. These circumstances could produce or aggravate anxious symptomatology that can in turn compound the negative effects of aging. A brief scale of perceived stress that is not confounded with health status and covers multiple culturally relevant potential stressors is needed for quick use in busy medical settings. Aim: To assess the reliability and the validity of an original stress scale designed to measure perceptions of stress beyond health status in a non-clinical convenience sample of community-dwelling older women. Method: In this cross-sectional pilot investigation, via conducting item-total correlations and correlational tests of validity, we studied the psychometric properties of our measure using data from volunteer older subjects (mainly low-income and from non-Caucasian backgrounds). he domains covered by the nine items of the tool were selected based on a literature review of common stressors experienced byolder adults, especially by older women. Data were collected face-to-face using a demographic list, a well-established depression measure, a brief posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) screener, and our 9-item stress tool. Primary outcomes: reliability and validity of the scale of older women's non-medical stress. Secondary outcomes: demographic characteristics of the sample and correlations between stress items. Results: Based on our sample of older women (N=40, mean age 71 years), good internal consistency between the items of the stress scale was found (Cronbach's α=.66). The findings of the data analyses also revealed that our psychometric tool has good convergent validity with the PTSD screener (r=.53). Moreover, in contrast with most other stress tools, it has strong discriminant validity (r=.11) with a well-validated depression scale. Conclusion: Our results suggest that this new measure is psychometrically strong. Future research directions encompass using larger samples, ideally including older men with the modification of the scale's name, as well as validating this tool against more measures. Clinical implications of our findings are briefly discussed.