AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Volume 1, Number 1
Submitted: October 16, 2004
First Revision: November 23, 2004
Accepted: November 30, 2004
Publication Date: January 5, 2005

AN ANALYSIS OF THE CATEGORIES IN THE STUDENT-LIFE

STRESS INVENTORY

Bernadette M. Gadzella and William G. Masten

Texas A&M University-Commerce

ABSTRACT

The purpose was to assess the nine categories of the Student-life Stress Inventory (SSI).
Five categories were stressors (Frustrations, Conflicts, Pressures, Changes, and Self-
imposed) and four were reactions to stressors (Physiological, Emotional, Behavioral,
and Cognitive Appraisals). Participants were 336 undergraduates who rated their
overall stress as mild, moderate, and severe. Internal consistencies ranged from .61 to
.86 indicating that the SSI categories were fairly reliable measures. F-ratios for all
categories, except the Cognitive Appraisals, were different among the three stress
groups. The severe stress group rated the categories higher than the moderate and mild
stress groups, respectively, and the moderate stress group rated the categories higher
than the mild stress group. Post hoc analysis showed differences between paired groups
for all categories except Conflicts. In the Conflicts category, the difference was between
the severe and mild stress groups. These data indicate that the remaining seven SSI
categories are valid measures.
INTRODUCTION

Most people experience some type of stress. Eustress is referred to as good and
challenging experiences. Distress is referred to as bad and harmful stressful situations.
Students who enroll in colleges and universities have high expectations. They sign up for
numerous courses and get involved in various activities. Some of these activities are
enjoyable and challenging; whereas, others may be overwhelming and stressful. It seems

that some of the students are faced with more and more stressors as they have combined
their schooling with working part-time (or more) hours, as well as being devoted to
family obligations. Thus, they may experience stressors that are impeding their academic
performance. If one wants to understand the kind of stress students are experiencing, it is
desirable, first, to investigate how students perceive their overall stress, and secondly,
how they rate their stressful situations and reactions to these stressors.

In general, stress can be viewed as the demands and changes one perceives and/or
experiences. Some theorists and researchers have studied stress as variables, that is,
situations that affect us (stimuli), and how we respond to these stressors (responses). For
instance, Holmes and Rahe (1967) defined stress as a stimulus variable. They explored
the relationships between stressful life events and physical illnesses. According to their
theory, changes in personal relationships, work, finances, etc. can be stressful, even when
they are welcomed events.

Selye (1976) defined stress as a response (physiological arousal) elicited by

different external events (stimuli). Selye (1974) formulated a theory about how one reacts
to stress. He referred to it as the general adaptation syndrome. In this model, the body’s
stress responses go through three stages: alarm, resistance, and exhaustion. The alarm
reaction occurs when an organism recognizes some threat. If the threat continues, the
physiological arousal rises or levels off when the organism becomes accustomed to the
threat. However, if the stress continues, the body resources for fighting it may be
depleted and the organism enters the exhaustive stage. Selye (1994) pointed out that there
is a link between one’s stress and physical illness.

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) defined stress as a specific stimulus-response

transaction that threatens an individual. In this model, the stress one experiences is not in
a situation (event) or in a person, but is an interaction between the situation and the
person depending on how the person appraises the situation and adapts to it (Goleman,
1979; Weiten, Lloyd, & Lashley, 1990). Although Lazarus and Folkman studied different
kinds of hassles or stressors (trivial events associated with one’s everyday living), their
focus was how the individual interprets the situation. They described these interpretations
as primary and secondary appraisals. The primary appraisal was viewed as one’s initial
evaluation of the stressful event by deciding whether the stress was relevant or irrelevant
to the individual. The secondary appraisal was the evaluation of one’s coping resources
and whether one had effective strategies to deal with stress (Gadzella, 1991; Martin &
Osborne, 1995).

The theorists and researchers (mentioned above) studied stress as variables

affecting individuals, such as, stimuli, responses, and interactions between stimuli and
responses. However, stress is an individual experience. It is a very complex topic to study
and it can be viewed in different ways. There are different kinds of stressors and reactions
to stressors that overlap and interact with each other producing multiple behaviors. For
example, physiological reactions may also be emotional and/or behavioral reactions.

If one is to understand the different kinds of stressors and the reactions to them,
there is a need to group them and study them specifically. It is also desirable to show how

the definitions of the stressors and reactions to them are similar to those referred to by
theorists and researchers (Gadzella, 1991). In the present study, stressors are defined as
events or situations (stimuli) that demand adjustment beyond the normal wear and tear of
daily living. Reactions to stress (responses) are viewed as physiological, emotional, and
behavioral. Reactions to stress can also be viewed as appraisals (cognitive approach) that
is, evaluating whether the stressors are relevant or irrelevant to the individual and
whether one has the knowledge of/and uses effective strategies to cope with the stressors.

Focusing on the students’ needs to understand stress, Gadzella (1991), with

students who were enrolled in classes studying stress, listed examples of different kinds
of stress following the model provided by Morris (1990). After analyzing the various
examples, a stress instrument was developed. This instrument, Student-life Stress
Inventory, SSI, (Gadzella, 1991) has nine categories of which five are stressors
(frustrations, conflicts, pressures, changes, and self-imposed) and four are reactions to the
stressors (physiological, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive appraisal).

Previous research studies examined the reliability and validity of the SSI. For
instance, in 1991, Gadzella, Fullwood and Ginther computed correlations for 95 students
on 3-week test-retest responses for each of the nine categories and total inventory. The
internal consistency, on the first response, for the total group on the SSI inventory was
.92. For the categories it ranged from .52 (Frustrations) to .85 (Changes). The test-retest
correlations for the total group ranged from .57 (Cognitive Appraisals category) to .76
(Emotional category). In another study (Gadzella & Guthrie, 1993), Pearson product-
moment correlations were computed for 87 students on 3-week test-retest responses. The
correlations for the total inventory were .78 for total group, .92 for men, and .72 for
women. Other studies reported different characteristics of students and their stress
(Gadzella, 1994; Gadzella & Fullwood, 1992; Gadzella, Fullwood, & Tomcala, 1992),
and different patterns of relationships among stressors (Gadzella, Ginther, & Fullwood,
1993). In 2001, Gadzella and Baloglu reported a detailed analysis of the SSI with
responses made by 381 students. The internal consistency for the SSI was .92, and for
men .90 and women .92. For the categories the internal consistencies ranged from .63
(Self-imposed) to .86 (Changes) and .86 (Physiological). In 2004 (Gadzella), a study of
three stress groups on their ratings of stressors and reactions to stressors in five studies
reported only the means and standard deviations for the groups.

The above presentation discussed the reason to study stress, what variables and
models influenced the development of the Student-life Stress Inventory (SSI), and how
the SSI was used and the findings in some of the previous research studies. The purpose
of the present study was to assess the reliability and validity of the categories in the SSI
by computing the internal consistencies for all the categories in the inventory and
determining whether there were significant differences among the three stress groups
(who rated their overall stress as mild, moderate, or severe) on their ratings of these
categories in the SSI.

METHOD
Participants: There were 336 undergraduates enrolled in psychology classes
during the Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 semesters at a state university who participated in

this study. There were 111 men and 225 women; of whom 96 were freshmen, 91
sophomores, 101 juniors, and 48 seniors. They rated their overall stress as mild (n = 81),
moderate (n =194), or severe (n = 61).

Instrument: The Student-Life Stress Inventory (SSI), (Gadzella, 1991) was the
instrument used to assess its nine categories. The SSI is a 51-item paper and pencil
questionnaire, consisting of nine categories (five stressors and four reactions to stressors).
The five stressors are: frustrations, conflicts, pressures, changes, and self-imposed.
Frustrations (seven items), assesses experiences dealing with delays in reaching goals,
daily hassles, lack of sources, failure to reach set goals, socially being unacceptable,
dating disappointments, and denials in opportunities. Conflicts (three items), assesses
one’s choices between two or more desirable alternatives, between two or more
undesirable alternatives, and with both desirable and undesirable alternatives. Pressures
(four items), assesses one’s competitions, deadlines, overload of activities, and
interpersonal relationships. Changes (three items), assesses one’s unpleasant experiences,
numerous changes at one time, and disruptive life and goals. Self-imposed (six items),
assesses one’s desire to compete, to be loved by all, worries about everything,
procrastinations, solutions to problems, and anxiety in test-taking.

The four reactions to stressors were: physiological, emotional, behavioral, and

cognitive appraisal. Physiological (14 items), assesses ones experiences with sweating,
stuttering, trembling, rapid movements, exhaustion, stomach problems, breathing
problems, backaches, skin reactions, headaches, arthritic pains, and weight losses or
weight gains. Emotional (four items), assesses one’s experiences with fear, anger, guilt,
and grief. Behavioral (eight items), assesses one’s experiences with crying, abuse of
others, abuse of self, smoking excessively, being irritable toward others, attempting
suicide, using defense mechanisms, and separating oneself from others. Cognitive
Appraisals (two items), assesses whether one analyzes the stressful situations and uses
appropriate strategies to solve stressful situations.

In responding to the SSI, participants must first indicate their overall view of
stress as mild = 1, moderate = 2, or severe = 3. Then, they rate each of the 51 items on a
5-point Likert scale of 1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = occasionally, 4 = often, and 5 = most of
the time. The responses can be reported on an answer sheet (that accompanies the SSI) or
on a scantron sheet.
In scoring the SSI, one first reverses the value ratings in items 50 and 51, that is, 1
= 5, and 5 =1, 2 = 4, and 4 = 2. [These two items are stated in a positive manner. For
instance, item 50 is phrased “thought and analyzed about how stressful the situations
were.” A rating of “1” (never) means the person did not think and analyze the stressful
situations. Whereas, a rating of “5” (most of the time) means the person thought and
analyzed the stressful situations often. Therefore, researchers need to reverse the value
ratings in scoring these two items.] The next step in scoring the SSI is to add the value
ratings for each item and then add the value ratings for the items in each category. The
total value for the SSI is the summation of the nine category value ratings. However, the
focus in this study is the value ratings for each of the categories that describe the different
stressors and reactions to the stressors.

 Procedure: In this study, participants were assigned an identification number.

They signed a consent form indicating that the data they provided may be used for
research studies. During class periods, on scantron sheets, they indicated their
identification number, their overall view of stress as mild = 1, moderate = 2, or severe =
3, and their demographic data as follows: 1 = man, 2 = woman; college status: 1 =
freshman, 2 = sophomore, 3 = junior, and 4 = senior. Then, they rated each of the 51
items, using the Likert scale from 1 (never) to 5 (most of the time) as described above
under the instrument section. The data were analyzed using the SPSS program.

RESULTS

To determine the reliability of the items in the SSI categories, internal

consistencies (alphas) were computed for each of the nine categories and for the whole group.
The data (Table 1) show that the lowest alpha (.61) was for the Self-imposed and the
highest (.86) was for the Changes category. The internal consistency for the whole
inventory was .92. Further analyses of the SSI categories are presented in Table 2. These
data show the totals and interquartile ranges, medians, means, and standard deviations for
the nine categories and the total SSI. In examining the data (Table 2), among the stressors
categories, the Self-imposed category (which includes stressors one imposes on self, e.g.,
frustrations, pressures, changes, etc.) had a wide range of ratings (from 8 to 30, a median
of 21.0, and a mean of 21.3). The current researchers considered it to be the most
stressful content area among the stressors categories. In the reactions to stressors, the
Physiological category (having a range of ratings from 14 to 68, a median of 30.0 and a
mean of 30.7), appears to be the most common type of reactions to stressors. However,
note that the Physiological category also includes emotional and behavioral reactions.

Table 1
Internal Consistencies (Alpha) for 336 Responses to the Student-life Stress Inventory by
Categories and Total SSI

Category Alpha

I. Stressors
Frustrations .67
Conflicts .71
Pressures .75
Changes .86
Self-imposed .61

II. Reactions to Stressors

Physiological .83
Emotional .82
Behavioral .73
Cognitive Appraisal .77

III. Total SSI .92

 To determine the differences among the three stress groups, analysis of variance
for each of the nine categories was computed. The ranges of ratings, means, standard
deviations, and F-ratios on the nine categories for the three stress groups (mild, moderate,
and severe) are presented in Table 3. The data show that the ranges for the stress groups
on categories were not clearly determined. This is due to some participants having
reported a wide range of ratings on various items of the SSI. Thus, their ratings exceeded
beyond their stress group’s range. However, in the total SSI the range of ratings for the
mild stress group was from 79 to 166, moderate stress group from 79 to 194, and severe
stress group from 110 to 238.

Table 2
Total and Interquartile Ranges, Median, Mean, and Standard Deviations on Ratings for
the Nine Categories of the SSI for 336 Participants

Category Range Total Interquartile Median Mean Standard

Deviation
I. Stressors
Frustrations 7-30 (23) 5 17.00 17.50 4.07
Conflicts 3-15 (12) 2 9.00 8.33 2.04
Pressures 4-20 (16) 4 14.00 13.91 3.23
Changes 3-15 (12) 3 7.00 7.59 2.67
Self-imposed 8-30 (22) 5 21.00 21.34 4.07

II. Reactions to Stressors

Physiological 14-68 (54) 3 30.00 30.68 8.99
Emotional 4-20 (16) 6 12.00 12.01 3.86
Behavioral 8-39 (31) 9 17.00 18.12 5.32
Cognitive Appraisal 2-10 (8) 4 6.00 5.71 2.16

III. Total 77-238 (161) 32 134.00 135.18 24.64

Data (Table 3) showed that there were significant differences (p < .05) among the
three groups on all categories. Post hoc Tukey t-tests were computed to determine if there
were significant differences between paired groups. Data showed that in all categories,
except in the Conflicts, there were significantly higher ratings for the higher stress group
(p <. 05) between (a) the severe stress group and the moderate and mild stress groups,
respectively, and (b) the moderate stress group and the mild stress group. In the Conflicts
category, the post hoc Tukey t-tests showed there were significant differences (p < .05)
only between the severe and mild stress groups with the severe stress group having higher
ratings.

 Table 3
Total Range of Ratings, Means, Standard Deviations, and F-ratios on the Nine Categories
for the Three Groups (Mild n = 81, Moderate n = 194, and Severe n = 61) df = 2/335.
Group Rating Range F-ratio
Category M SD
I. Stressor
Frustrations Mild 7-25 15.11 3.66 35.48**
Moderate 8-25 17.59 3.60
Severe 13-20 20.39 4.08
Conflicts Mild 3-13 7.77 1.90 6.76**
Moderate 3-13 8.35 2.02
Severe 4-13 9.02 2.12
Pressures Mild 4-20 12.25 2.78 35.35**
Moderate 4-20 13.81 3.06
Severe 10-20 11.43 2.78
Changes Mild 3-11 6.30 2.14 35.22**
Moderate 3-15 7.46 2.42
Severe 5-15 9.72 2.79
Self-Imposed Mild 8-30 19.99 4.41 9.17**
Moderate 8-30 21.43 3.76
Severe 14-29 22.85 4.03
II. Reactions to Stressors
Physiological Mild 14-42 24.93 6.52 38.70**
Moderate 14-53 31.11 8.00
Severe 20-68 36.93 10.18
Emotional Mild 4-20 9.51 3.15 38.90**
Moderate 4-20 12.23 3.64
Severe 6-20 14.66 3.41
Behavioral Mild 8-30 15.53 4.06 29.11**
Moderate 8-39 18.01 4.71
Severe 10-38 21.84 6.42
Cognitive Appraisal Mild 2-10 6.10 2.39 2.02
Moderate 2-10 5.64 2.03
Severe 2-10 5.41 2.20
III. Total Mild 79-166 117.47 17.81 62.14**
Moderate 77-194 136.63 20.47
Severe 110-238 157.30 26.41

*p<.05, **p<001.

DISCUSSION

One purpose of the present study was to analyze the ratings of the items (and
categories) of the Student-life Stress Inventory for the total group of 336 participants.
Several computations were reported. First, the internal consistencies for the nine
categories of the SSI varied from .61 (Self-imposed) to .86 (Conflicts). In the 1991 study

(Gadzella, Fullwood, & Ginther) with 95 subjects, the internal consistencies for the
categories varied from .52 (Frustrations) to .85 (Changes). In the 2001 study (Gadzella &
Baloglu), the internal consistencies for the categories varied from .63 (Self-imposed) to
.86 (Changes) and .86 (Physiological). Overall, the internal consistencies (alphas) for the
categories in the SSI from these three studies were very similar. Therefore, one can
conclude that, even after 13 years, the categories in the SSI are fairly reliable in
measuring the contents in the different types of stressors and reactions to stressors.

Secondly, in the present study the focus was primarily on the different stressors
and reactions to stressors. Data were displayed showing the total ranges of the ratings,
medians, means, and standard deviations for each of the categories. These data provide
additional information that was not reported previously. From the data, one notes that the
Self-imposed category (which included stressors one imposes on self) was the most
stressful among the stressors categories. The Physiological category (which includes
emotional and behavioral reactions) involved the most common reactions to stressors. In
providing these additional data on the SSI, there should be a better understanding of how
the SSI was constructed, and how it can be used in future research studies.

The second purpose of the present study was to investigate whether there were
significant differences among the three stress groups (mild, moderate, and severe) on
their ratings of the items in the different stressors and reactions to stressors categories.
Some of data found in the present study were similar to that previously reported
(Gadzella, 1994, 2004; Gadzella & Baloglu, 2001; Gadzella & Guthrie, 1993). That is,
generally, the severe stress group reported significantly higher ratings (stress) than the
moderate and mild stress groups, respectively, and the moderate stress group reported
significantly higher ratings (stress) than the mild stress group on most of the categories in
the SSI. There were two exceptions in the Conflicts and Cognitive Appraisal categories.
In the present study, on the Conflicts category, significant differences were found only
between the severe stress and mild stress groups. On the Cognitive Appraisal category,
there were no significant differences among the three stress groups. Since there were
significant differences among the three stress groups on the other seven categories, it can
be stated, that the seven categories are valid measures of the stressors and reactions to
stressors for this group of participants.

However, there are some limitations with the SSI. The rating values in the
Conflicts category did not show significant differences between the severe and moderate
stress groups and between the moderate and mild stress groups. Maybe the items in the
Conflicts category need to be stated differently and/or an additional item added. In the
additional item participants could rate which of the three conflicts was the most stressful.
In the Cognitive Appraisal category, there were no significant differences among the
three stress groups. This may be due to several reasons. First, the participants might not
have read the items in this category carefully. The two items in the Cognitive Appraisal
category are stated as to whether one thought and analyzed the stressful situations. If so,
these analyses would assist one (positively) in adapting to the stressful situations. Thus, if
one appraised the stressful situations often, then one would experience less stress. This is
the reason, for reversing the value ratings in these items in the Cognitive Appraisal

category before adding their values. Secondly, the items in the Cognitive Appraisal
category might be too general. They could be stated more specifically, such as, whether
one has appraised the stressful situations as relevant or irrelevant, had knowledge of
effective strategies to overcome the stressful situations, and used the effective strategies
in different stressful events. In doing so, it might be easier for the participants to
understand what is asked and easier for the researchers to interpret the data.

In summary, the data in the present study provide more detailed information on
the items and categories of the SSI. That is, the reliability and validity of the categories in
the SSI, which categories were rated higher and why, and what information was similar
to that reported previously. The information in the study also provides an insight as to
how the inventory was constructed and its possible use in future research studies.

The difficulty in interpreting some of the data, especially from the Conflicts and
Cognitive Appraisals categories, indicated the need to revise and/or include other items in
these categories. These changes can be made easily. Other studies can be conducted, for
instance, a study of the differences between traditional and non-traditional students on
their stressors and reactions to stressors presented in the SSI.

REFERENCES

Gadzella, B. M. (1991). Student-life Stress Inventory. Commerce, TX:

Copyright.
Gadzella, B. M. (1994). Student-life Stress Inventory: Identification of and
reactions to Stressors. Psychological Reports, 74, 395-402.
Gadzella, B. M. (2004). Three stress groups on their stressors and reactions to
stressors in five studies. Psychological Reports, 94, 562-564.
Gadzella, B. M. (1993). Analysis of a stress inventory. Paper presented at the
Texas Academy of Science, Denton, TX.
Gadzella, B. M. (1992). Difference among university student age groups on their
perceptions of stress. Proceedings of the Texas Academy of Sciences, 176-180.
Gadzella, B. M., & Baloglu, M. (2001). Confirmatory factor analysis and internal
consistency of the Student-life Stress Inventory. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 28,
84-94.
Gadzella, B. M., Fullwood, H. L., & Ginther, D. W. (1991). Student-life Stress
Inventory. Paper presented at the Texas Psychological Convention, San Antonio, TX.
(ERIC 350 345).
Gadzella, B. M., Fullwood, H. L., & Tomcala, M. (1992). Students’ stressors and
reactions to stressors. Paper presented at the Southwestern Psychological Association
Convention, Austin, TX. (ERIC CG 024239).
Gadzella, B. M., Ginther, D. W., & Fullwood, H. L. (1993). Patterns of
relationships among types of stressors. Paper presented at the Southwestern
Psychological Association Convention, Corpus Christi, TX.
Holmes, T. H., & Rabe, R. H. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.

 Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping, New York:
Springer.
Martin, G. L., & Osborne, J. G. (1993). Psychology, adjustment, and everyday
living. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Morris, C. G. (1990). Contemporary psychology and effective behavior. (7th Ed.)
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman
Selye, H. (1976). The stress of life. (2nd Ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Selye, H. (1974). Stress without distress. Philadelphia, PA. Lippincott.
Weiten, W., Lloyd, M. A., & Lashley, R. L. (1990). Psychology applied to
modern life: adjustment in the 90s. (3rd Ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Authors’ note. Permission to use and/or make reference to the SSI must be first
obtained from Dr. B.M. Gadzella, Psychology and Special Education Department, Texas
A&M University-Commerce, Commerce TX 75429. (Email:
[email protected]). *Acknowledgements are made to James
Stacks, Virginia Thompson, and Rebecca Stephens in assisting the collection of data for
this study. Part of this paper was presented at Southwestern Psychological Association
Convention held at San Antonio, TX on April 9, 2004.

10