Problems of internal consistency and scaling in life event schedules

https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(81)90008-8Get rights and content

Abstract

Methodological issues in the selection, scaling and summation of items for life event inventories are discussed and illustrated by reference to previously published factor analyses, cluster analyses and multiple regression analyses of life event schedules. Internal consistency is not an appropriate criterion for the construction of evaluation of life event schedules. Theoretically such schedules should have zero order internal consistency. Five methods of weighting events are reviewed. Group-based values may be affected by experience of item rated, whether the rater is a patient, and a number of demographic variables. The use of each respondent's own scale values does not necessarily result in better production of outcome measures. Unweighted event frequency deserves closer attention. However, the use of total Life Change Unit scores from an intuitively derived, albeit carefully scaled, schedule of events risks masking the effects of critical items by irrelevant ones. These problems set limits to the extent to which the use of life event schedules can be profitably refined.

References (50)

  • A. Komaroff et al.

    The social readjustment rating scale: a comparative study of Negro, Mexican and White Americans

    J. psychosom. Res.

    (1968)
  • M. Masuda et al.

    The social readjustment rating scale: a cross-cultural study of Japanese and Americans

    J. psychosom. Res.

    (1967)
  • R.H. Rahe et al.

    The social readjustment rating scale: a comparative study of Swedes and Americans

    J. psychosom. Res.

    (1971)
  • M. Masuda et al.

    Magnitude estimations of social readjustments

    J. psychosom. Res.

    (1967)
  • J. Isherwood et al.

    The social readjustment rating scale: a cross-cultural study of New Zealanders and Americans

    J. psychosom. Res.

    (1976)
  • I. Grant et al.

    Scaling of life events by psychiatric patients and normals

    J. psychosom. Res.

    (1976)
  • R.D. Caplan

    A less heretical view of life change and hospitalisation

    J. psychosom. Res.

    (1975)
  • D.A. Chiriboga

    Life event weighting systems: a comparative analysis

    J. psychosom. Res.

    (1977)
  • R.H. Rahe et al.

    Demographic and psychosocial factors in acute illness reporting

    J. chron. Dis.

    (1970)
  • R.H. Rahe et al.

    Prediction of near-future health change from subjects' preceding life changes

    J. psychosom. Res.

    (1970)
  • R.T. Rubin et al.

    Life stress and illness patterns in the U.S. Navy—V. Prior life change and illness onset in a battleship's crew

    J. psychosom. Res.

    (1971)
  • H.J. Thurlow

    Illness in relation to life situation and sick-role tendency

    J. psychosom. Res.

    (1971)
  • G.W. Brown

    Life events and psychiatric illness; some thoughts on methodology and causality

    J. psychosom. Res.

    (1972)
  • R.H. Rahe et al.

    A longitudinal study of life-change and illness patterns

    J. psychosom. Res.

    (1967)
  • M. Masuda et al.

    Life events: Perceptions and frequencies

    Psychosom. Med.

    (1978)
  • Cited by (42)

    • Past adversity and obsessive-compulsive symptoms: The mediating roles of posttraumatic cognitions and posttraumatic stress symptoms

      2021, Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders
      Citation Excerpt :

      Scores on the AFDS were tallied only for participants who completed at least six of its seven items, and scores were computed as equal to the product of the mean response value for completed items and seven. Internal consistency of the AFDS was not computed due to the inappropriateness of examining internal consistency as a reliability criterion in the context of life event measures (Cleary, 1981; Gray et al., 2004). PTSD Checklist for DSM-5.

    • A Prospective Test of Cognitive Vulnerability Models of Depression With Adolescent Girls

      2008, Behavior Therapy
      Citation Excerpt :

      In addition, the agreement between negative life events endorsed with these items and interview-confirmed negative life events has been found to be high (M percent agreement = 68; Lewinsohn, Rohde, & Gau, 2003). It has been noted (Cleary, 1981) that internal consistency is not an appropriate index of the reliability for stressful life events measures because experiencing one stressful event (e.g., having a possession stolen) should not increase the odds of experiencing others (e.g., experiencing an illness). This scale had an α = .51 at T1, which was similar to other stressful life events measures (αs ranged from .41 to .53; Hurst, Jenkins, & Rose, 1978).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text