It is easy to explore a particular issue with patients; a pressing issue is more likely to be discussed.

French researchers wanted to understand whether a simple question regarding occupational stress was a valid measure. Occupational medicine is an embedded part of work health within France, with most workplaces under the care of an occupational physician.

The French researchers had 360 workers complete a questionnaire designed to measure perceived stress. Researchers also asked these workers to complete a visual analogue scale regarding stress.

A visual analogue scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_analogue_scale) measures these symptoms on a scale of 0 to 10. Zero is no symptoms, while 10 represents severe symptoms. In practice, patients may be shown a measuring stick and mark a point on that scale. Alternatively, patients may be asked verbally to rate their level of symptoms.

The researchers found a strong level of correlation between the questionnaire results and the visual analogue scale.

A score of 7.0 was identified as an appropriate score to identify those with high stress levels. Those who reported scores of seven and above can be assumed to have "high stress" levels.

The researchers concluded that a simple visual analogue scale for stress is suitable for everyday use and provides meaningful and useful results.

Authors

Lesage FX, Berjot S.

Institution

Unité Fonctionnelle pathologie professionnelle et sante au travail, hospital Sébastopol, 48 rue de Sébastopol, 51092 Reims cedex, France. fxlesage@chu-reims.fr

Title

Validity of occupational stress assessment using a visual analogue scale.

Source

Occup Med (Lond). 2011 Sep;61(6):434-6. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqr037. Epub 2011 Apr 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:
The visual analogue scale (VAS) is empirically used by occupational physicians to assess stress but very few studies have been published about its quantitative validation.

AIMS:
To assess the external validity of the VAS for the assessment of stress in the clinical occupational health setting by comparing its scores with the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) of Cohen.

METHODS:
An anonymous self-completed questionnaire (PSS14) and the VAS were filled in by a random sample of 360 workers from several occupational health centres.

RESULTS:
No difference between the mean scores of PSS14 and stress VAS was found. The equation of the linear regression was 'VAS score = -0.18 + 1008 × PSS14 score'. A VAS score of 7.0 was identified as having the best sensitivity/specificity ratio (0.74 and 0.93, respectively) for identifying those with 'high stress' using the PSS cut-off score of 7.2, using a receiver operator curve approach.

CONCLUSIONS:
Our results support an acceptable agreement between the two tests, meaning that the two tools assess the same psychological construct. The good sensitivity/specificity ratio and the area under the curve close to 1 provide evidence that a VAS is suitable to help the occupational physician detect a high level of stress. The use of a VAS for stress assessment seems to be meaningful, suitable and useful for occupational physicians.

PubMed Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21505089