Stress is a multidimensional construct with different areas of stress potentially having differential relationships with short-term and long-term outcomes. The Daily Inventory of Stressful Events (DISE) is a semi-structured survey in which participants report whether any of a series of stressful events had occurred within the past 24 hours. This end-of-day measure consists of a brief set of stem and conditional questions that can be can be administered via smartphones. An example stem question is “Did you have an argument or disagreement with anyone in the past 24 hours?” An example follow-up questions is “How stressful was this?” “How much control did you have over the situation?” This instrument yields several variables for each reported stressor including: (a) content classification of the stressor (e.g., work overload, argument over housework, traffic problem); (b) subjective severity of stressors; (c) primary appraisals (i.e., areas of life that were at risk because of the stressor); and (d) perceived control of the situation.
The DISE is a self-report measure that assesses stressful experiences dynamically within a person over multiple days (Almeida, Wethington & Kessler, 2002). Compared to other more intensive stress assessments that capture stress several times within a day (i.e., Ecological Momentary Assessments), The DISE permits in-depth stress assessment at the end of the day across several days. Both EMA and end of day measures such as the DISE have some advantages over more static global reports of stress. These within-person approaches permit the report of stress as it naturally occurs in everyday life. Although everyone experiences stress, there is considerable variation in how stress affects health behaviors and health outcomes, both between and within individuals (Almeida 2005, Smyth et al 2013). The DISE is a sensitive and informative stress assessment that identifies who is broadly at risk for stress-related dysfunction (i.e., between-person effect), but also identify situations and times when people are at risk (i.e., within-person effect; reveals dynamic processes within individuals). This approach emphasizes measuring relatively short-term stress experiences that may identify moments of risk for unhealthy behaviors (Symth et al., 2017).
[+] PMCID, PUBMED ID, or CITATION
Text Citation: Almeida, D. M., Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (2002). The daily inventory of stressful experiences (DISE): An interview-based approach for measuring daily stressors. Assessment, 9, 41-55. doi: 10.1177/1073191102091006
Text Citation: Almeida, D. M. (2005). Resilience and vulnerability to daily stressors assessed via diary methods. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 64-68. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00336.x
Text Citation: Smyth, J. M., et al., (2017)Everyday stress response targets in the science of behavior change, Behaviour Research and Therapy, doi.org/10.1016
Text Citation: Smyth, J., Zawadzki, M., & Gerin, W. (2013). Stress and health: A structural and functional analysis of chronic stress. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 217–227.
This measure has not been measured yet.
This measure has not been influenced yet.
This measure has not been validated yet.
The Science of Behavior Change (SOBC) program seeks to promote basic research on the initiation, personalization and maintenance of behavior change. By integrating work across disciplines, this effort will lead to an improved understanding of the underlying principles of behavior change. The SOBC program aims to implement a mechanisms-focused, experimental medicine approach to behavior change research and to develop the tools required to implement such an approach. The experimental medicine approach involves: identifying an intervention target, developing measures to permit verification of the target, engaging the target through experimentation or intervention, and testing the degree to which target engagement produces the desired behavior change.
Within the SOBC Measures Repository, researchers have access to measures of mechanistic targets that have been (or are in the processing of being) validated by SOBC Research Network Members and other experts in the field. The SOBC Validation Process includes three important stages of evaluation for each proposed measure: Identification, Measurement, and Influence.
The first stage of validation requires a measure to be Identified within the field; there must be theoretical support for the specific measure of the proposed mechanistic target or potential mechanism of behavior change. This evidence may include references for the proposed measure, or theoretical support for the construct that the proposed measure is intended to assess. The second stage of validation requires demonstration that the level and change in level of the chosen mechanistic target can be Measured with the proposed measure (assay). For example, if the proposed measure is a questionnaire, the score on the measure should indicate the activity of the target process, and it must have strong psychometric properties. The third stage of validation requires demonstration that the measure can be Influenced; there must be evidence that the measured target is malleable and responsive to manipulation. Evidence relating to each stage includes at least one peer-reviewed publication or original data presentation (if no peer-reviewed research is available to support the claim) and is evaluated by SOBC Research Network Members and experts in the field.
Once a measure has gone through these three stages, it will then either be Validated or Not validated according to SOBC Research Network standards. If a measure is Validated, then change in the measured target was reliably associated with Behavior Change. If a measure is Not validated, then change in the measured target was not reliably associated with Behavior Change. Why would we share measures that are not validated? The SOBC Research Network values open, rigorous, and transparent research. Our goal is to make meaningful progress and develop replicable and effective interventions in behavior change science. Therefore, the SOBC sees value in providing other researchers in the field with information regarding measures that work and measures that fall short for specific targets. Further, a measure that is not validated for one target in one population may be validated in another target or population.
Want to learn more? For any questions regarding the SOBC Validation Process or Measures Repository, please email email@example.com.
Has the mechanism been identified as a potential target for behavior change? This section summarizes theoretical support for the mechanism.
Have the psychometric properties of this measure been assessed? This section includes information such as content validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.
Has a study manipulation led to change in the mechanism? This section addresses evidence that this measure is modifiable by experimental manipulation or clinical intervention.
Has a change in this mechanism been associated with behavior change? This section addresses empirical evidence that causing change in the measure reliably produces subsequent behavior change.