SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2026 / Volume: 13 Issue: 2

Perceived Stress Scale in Romantic Relationships (PSSRR): A scale development study

Ayşe Cansu Bilgen(PAMUKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-5307-2540
Turgut Türkdoğan(Pamukkale University)0000-0001-5440-341X
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-03-13
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Item-level results indicated adequate discrimination and that the scale provided the most precise measurement at moderate to high levels of perceived stress.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Grounded in the Systemic–Transactional Model, this study developed the Perceived Stress Scale in Romantic Relationships and evaluated its psychometric properties in adults currently involved in a romantic relationship.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The exploratory analyses were conducted with 571 participants (age range 20–63 years), and the confirmatory analysis was conducted with 246 participants (age range 21–64 years).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Item-level results indicated adequate discrimination and that the scale provided the most precise measurement at moderate to high levels of perceived stress.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Classical test theory · Item response theory · Marriage and family counseling

Abstract

Grounded in the Systemic–Transactional Model, this study developed the Perceived Stress Scale in Romantic Relationships and evaluated its psychometric properties in adults currently involved in a romantic relationship. Using a scale development design, data were collected from two independent samples of individuals who had been in a romantic relationship. The exploratory analyses were conducted with 571 participants (age range 20–63 years), and the confirmatory analysis was conducted with 246 participants (age range 21–64 years). Construct validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Item functioning and precision were further evaluated using a graded response model within the item response theory framework. Discriminative power was tested by comparing lower and upper score groups, and criterion-related validity was examined through correlations with couple burnout, relationship satisfaction, and relationship consensus. Results supported a unidimensional five-item short form. Confirmatory analyses indicated good model fit, and multi-group confirmatory factor analysis supported strict measurement invariance across gender. Internal consistency was high in both samples. Criterion-related validity evidence showed strong positive associations with couple burnout and negative associations with relationship satisfaction and relationship consensus. Item-level results indicated adequate discrimination and that the scale provided the most precise measurement at moderate to high levels of perceived stress. Overall, the Perceived Stress Scale in Romantic Relationships appears to be a brief, valid, and reliable measure for assessing relationship-specific perceived stress.

Özet

Grounded in the Systemic–Transactional Model, this study developed the Perceived Stress Scale in Romantic Relationships and evaluated its psychometric properties in adults currently involved in a romantic relationship. Using a scale development design, data were collected from two independent samples of individuals who had been in a romantic relationship. The exploratory analyses were conducted with 571 participants (age range 20–63 years), and the confirmatory analysis was conducted with 246 participants (age range 21–64 years). Construct validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Item functioning and precision were further evaluated using a graded response model within the item response theory framework. Discriminative power was tested by comparing lower and upper score groups, and criterion-related validity was examined through correlations with couple burnout, relationship satisfaction, and relationship consensus. Results supported a unidimensional five-item short form. Confirmatory analyses indicated good model fit, and multi-group confirmatory factor analysis supported strict measurement invariance across gender. Internal consistency was high in both samples. Criterion-related validity evidence showed strong positive associations with couple burnout and negative associations with relationship satisfaction and relationship consensus. Item-level results indicated adequate discrimination and that the scale provided the most precise measurement at moderate to high levels of perceived stress. Overall, the Perceived Stress Scale in Romantic Relationships appears to be a brief, valid, and reliable measure for assessing relationship-specific perceived stress.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bilgen, A. C., Türkdoğan, T. (2026). Perceived Stress Scale in Romantic Relationships (PSSRR): A scale development study. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Volume: 13 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1693020

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (62)

  1. Aneshensel, C.S. (1992). Social stress: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 18(1), 15-38. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.000311
  2. Arbuckle, J.L. (2012). IBM SPSS AMOS 21 User’s Guide. IBM Corp.
  3. Aybek, E.C., & Toraman, C. (2022). How many response categories are sufficient for Likert type scales? An empirical study based on the Item Response Theory. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(2), 534-547. 547. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1132931
  4. Aydoğdu, F. (2025, February, 14). AVE & CR calculation. Fuat Aydogdu Offical Website https://www.fuataydogdu.com/avecr
  5. Baker, F.B. (2016). Item Response Theory (M. İlhan, Trans). Pegem Akademi. (The original work was published in 2001).
  6. Bayraktaroğlu H.T., & Çakıcı E.T. (2017). Psychometric properties of revised form dyadic adjustment scale in a sample from North Cyprus. International Journal of Educational Science, 19(2,3), 113-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/09751122.2017.1393954
  7. Braiker, H., & Kelley, H.H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In R.L. Burgess & T.L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-143550-9.50011-2
  8. Bodenmann, G. (2005). Dyadic coping and its significant for marital functioning. In: T. Revenson, K. Kayser, & G. Bodenmann (Eds.), Couples coping with stress: Emerging perspectives on dyadic coping (1st ed., pp. 33−50). American Psychological Association
  9. Bodenmann, G. (1997). Dyadic coping-a systematic-transactional view of stress and coping among couples: Theory and empirical findings. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47(2), 137-140.
  10. Bodenmann, G., Ledermann, T., & Bradbury, T.N. (2007). Stress, sex, and satisfaction in marriage. Personal Relationships, 14(4), 551-569. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00171.x
  11. Bodenmann, G. (2007). Multidimensional Stress Questionnaire for Couples (MSF-P). Unpublished manuscript.
  12. Busby, D.M., Christensen, C., Crane, D.R., & Larson, J.H. (1995). A revision of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale for use with distressed and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and family Therapy, 21(3), 289-308.
  13. Büyükkıdık, S., & Atar, H.Y. (2018). Çok kategorili madde tepki kuramı modellerinin karşılaştırılması [Investigation of polytomous item response theory models in terms of sample size]. Gazi Faculty of Education Journal, 38(2), 663-692. https://doi.org/10.17152/gefad.334608
  14. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö.E., Demirel, F., Karadeniz, Ş., & Çakmak, E.K. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Pegem Akademi.
  15. Carpenter, S. (2018). Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(1), 25 44. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2017.1396583
  16. Chalmers, R.P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional ıtem response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
  17. Chen, F.F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464 504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
  18. Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press.
  19. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). Perceived Stress Scale [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t02889-000
  20. Cohen, L., Manion L., & Morrison, K. (2021). Eğitimde Araştırma Yöntemleri [Research Methods in Education]. (N. Güler & M. İlhan, Trans.) Pegem Akademi. (The original work was published in 2017).
  21. Çapri, B. (2013). The Turkish adaptation of the burnout measure-shortversion (BMS) and couple burnout measure-shortversion (CBMS) and the relationship between career and couple burnout based on psychoanalytic-existential perspective. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(3), 1393-1418. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2013.3.1576
  22. DeVellis, R.F., & Thorpe, C.T. (2022). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications.
  23. Dewe, P., Cox, T., & Ferguson, E. (1993). Individual strategies for coping with stress at work: A review. Work & Stress, 7(1), 5-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379308257046
  24. Donato, S., Pagani, A.F., Rosta‐Filep, O., Faggiano, M., Pajardi, D., Martos, T., Sallay, V., & Randall, A.K. (2023). Partners' internal stress and well‐being: The role of dyadic coping and problem resolution. Personal Relationships, 30(1), 332-352. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12465
  25. Eskin, M., Harlak, H., Demirkıran, F., & Dereboy, Ç. (2013). Algılanan stres ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: güvenirlik ve geçerlik analizi [The adaptation of the perceived stress scale ınto turkish: a reliability and validity analysis]. New Symposium Journal, 51(3), 132-140.
  26. Falconier, M.K., Nussbeck, F., Bodenmann, G., Schneider, H., & Bradbury, T. (2015). Stress from daily hassles in couples: Its effects on intradyadic stress, relationship satisfaction, and physical and psychological well being. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 41(2), 221 235. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12073
  27. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  28. Geiss, S.K., & O'Leary, K.D. (1981). Therapist ratings of frequency and severity of marital problems: Implications for research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 7(4), 515 520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.1981.tb01407.x
  29. Hambleton, R.K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H.J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Sage Publications.
  30. Hinkin, T.R. (2005). Scale development principles and practices. In: R.A. Snawson, & E.F. Holton III (Eds.) Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (1st ed., pp. 161-180) Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
  31. Hertzog, M.A. (2008). Considerations in determining sample size for pilot studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 31(2), 180-191. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20247
  32. Hospers, J.M., Smits, N., Smits, C., Stam, M., Terwee, C.B., & Kramer, S.E. (2016). Reevaluation of the Amsterdam inventory for auditory disability and handicap using item response theory. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(2), 373-383. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-15-0156
  33. IBM Corp. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. IBM Corp.
  34. Kaner, S. (2001). Aile stresini değerlendirme ölçeği faktör yapısı, güvenirlik ve geçerlik çalışmaları [The questionnaire on resource and stress-f]. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 34(1), 1-10.
  35. Kanner, A.D., Coyne, J.C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R.S. (1981) Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00844845
  36. Kara, N., Balcı, B.B., & Araz, A. (2022). Systematic review of longitudinal studies with couples on marital quality, satisfaction, and adjustment. Turkish Psychological Article, 25(50), 92-94. https://doi.org/10.31828/tpy1301996120230124m000051
  37. Kleka, P., & Soroko, E. (2018). How to avoid the sins of questionnaires abridgement? Survey Research Methods, 12(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8jg9u
  38. Kline, R.B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
  39. Kyriazos, T.A., & Stalikas, A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: The steps of scale development and standardization process. Psychology, 9(11), 2531-2560. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.911145
  40. Ledermann, T., Bodenmann, G., Rudaz, M., & Bradbury, T.N. (2010). Stress, communication, and marital quality in couples. Family Relations, 59(2), 195-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00595.x
  41. Louie, A.D., Cromer, L.D., & Berry, J.O. (2017). Assessing parenting stress: Review of the use and interpretation of the parental stress scale. The Family Journal, 25(4), 359 367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480717731347
  42. Lovibond, P.F., & Lovibond, S.H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U
  43. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S.E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99-113.
  44. Neff, L.A., & Karney, B.R. (2007). Stress crossover in newlywed marriage: A longitudinal and dyadic perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(3), 594-607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00394.x
  45. Nevitt, J., & Hancock, G.R. (2001). Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling. Structural equation modeling, 8(3), 353-377. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_2
  46. Onat, G., & Kizilkaya-Beji, N. (2012). Effects of infertility on gender differences in marital relationship and quality of life: a case-control study of Turkish couples. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 165(2), 243 248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2012.07.033
  47. Orth-Gomér, K., Wamala, S.P., Horsten, M., Schenck-Gustafsson, K., Schneiderman, N., & Mittleman, M.A. (2000). Marital stress worsens prognosis in women with coronary heart disease: The Stockholm Female Coronary Risk Study. JAMA, 284(23), 3008 3014. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.23.3008
  48. Pines, A.M., Neal, M.B., Hammer, L.B., & Icekson, T. (2011). Job burnout and couple burnout in dual-earner couples in the sandwiched generation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74(4), 361-386.
  49. Price, L.R. (2017). Psychometric methods: Theory into practice. The Guilford Press.
  50. Randall, A.K., & Bodenmann, G. (2009). The role of stress on close relationships and marital satisfaction. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(2), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.10.004
  51. Randall, A.K., & Bodenmann, G. (2017). Stress and its associations with relationship satisfaction. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 96-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.010
  52. Reddy, K.J., Menon, K.R., & Thattil, A. (2018). Academic stress and its sources among university students. Biomedical and Pharmacology Journal, 11(1), 531 537. https://dx.doi.org/10.13005/bpj/1404
  53. RStudio Team (2024). RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software, PBC. http://www.R-project.org/
  54. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 34(4), 1–97.
  55. Sarıçam, H. (2018). The psychometric properties of Turkish version of depression anxiety stress scale-21 (DASS-21) in health control and clinical samples. Journal of Cognitive-Behavioral Psychotherapy and Research, 7(1), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.5455/JCBPR.274847
  56. Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 15-28.
  57. Suárez-Álvarez, J., Pedrosa, I., Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., Cuesta, M., & Muñiz, J. (2018). Using reversed items in Likert scales: A questionable practice. Psicothema, 30(2), 149 158. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.33
  58. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
  59. Tepeli-Temiz, Z., & Bilican, F. (2024). Daily external stress, internal stress, dyadic coping, and relationship functioning of Turkish couples during the COVID‐19: A daily diary study. Stress and Health, 40(5), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3455
  60. Yaşar, M., & Aybek, E.C. (2019). A resilience scale development for university students: validity and reliability study based on item response theory. Elementary Education Online, 18(4), 1687-1699. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.635031
  61. Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4
  62. Wu, Y., Tang, J., Du, Z., Chen, K., Wang, F., Sun, X., Zhang, G., & Wu, Y. (2025). Development of a short version of the perceived social support scale: based on classical test theory and ant colony optimization. BMC Public Health, 25(1), 232-243. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21399-y