Clinical Psychology and Personality

Clinical Psychology and Personality

From Confirmatory Factor Modeling to Machine Learning: A Multi-Method Examination of the Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties of the PSS-10

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
1 PhD in Educational Psychology, Independent Researcher, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar, Iran
3 M.A. in General Psychology, Garmsar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Garmsar, Iran
4 Ph.D. in Philosophy of Education, Payame Noor University, Tehran South, Iran
Abstract
Introduction: The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) is one of the most widely used self-report instruments for measuring stress. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive psychometric evaluation of the PSS-10 by employing a multi-method approach that integrates five advanced techniques: structural equation modeling, item response theory, exploratory graph analysis, network analysis, and machine learning.
Method: In this psychometric study, a convenience sample of 1,278 students from the Islamic Azad University, Garmsar Branch, was recruited. Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis models (CFA, ESEM, ESEM-within-CFA), item response theory models (GRM, GPCM, MPGCM), exploratory graph analysis (EGA), network analysis (including centrality indices), and the random forest algorithm. Key indices from each approach were integrated to rank items based on their performance, thereby identifying core, complementary, and revision-recommended items.
Results: The ESEM-within-CFA model demonstrated excellent fit (RMSEA = .000; CFI = 1.00) and was selected as the final model. Independent analyses, including IRT (MGPCM), EGA, and network analysis, consistently supported a two-factor structure for the PSS-10: Perceived Helplessness and Perceived Self-Efficacy. Based on the integrated ranking, items 10 and 2 were identified as core items; items 1, 3, 8, and 9 as complementary items; and items 4, 5, 6, and 7—especially item 5—as requiring revision.
Discussion and conclusion: The findings not only support the strong construct validity of the PSS-10 but also demonstrate that a multi-method approach is an effective strategy for accurately identifying key items and optimizing psychometric instruments.
Keywords

1-    Soria‐Reyes LM, Cerezo MV, Alarcón R, Blanca MJ. Psychometric properties of the perceived stress scale (pss‐10) with breast cancer patients. Stress and Health. 2023 Feb; 39(1): 115-24 doi:‌10.1002/smi.3170
2-    Lazarus RS. Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer; 1984.
3-    McEwen BS. Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation: central role of the brain. Physiological reviews. 2007 Jul; 87(3): 873-904. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00041.2006
4-    Monroe SM, Simons AD. Diathesis-stress theories in the context of life stress research: implications for the depressive disordersI. 1991 Nov; 110(3): 406.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.3.406
5-    Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of health and social behavior. 1983 Dec 1:385-96.
6-    Lee, E.H., 2012. Review of the psychometric evidence of the perceived stress scale. Asian nursing research, 6(4), pp.121-127.
7-    Yılmaz Koğar E, Koğar H. A systematic review and meta‐analytic confirmatory factor analysis of the perceived stress scale (PSS‐10 and PSS‐14). Stress and Health. 2024 Feb;40(1):e3285.
8-    Zhang Z, Wang Q. Psychometric properties of the perceived stress scale (PSS‐10) among pregnant women in China. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2024 Dec 24; 15: 1493341.
9-    She Z, Li D, Zhang W, Zhou N, Xi J, Ju K. Three versions of the perceived stress scale: psychometric evaluation in a nationally representative sample of Chinese adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2021 Aug 5; 18(16):8312. doi:10.3390/ijerph18168312
10- Liu X, Zhao Y, Li J, Dai J, Wang X, Wang S. Factor structure of the 10-item perceived stress scale and measurement invariance across genders among Chinese adolescents. Frontiers in psychology. 2020 Apr 9; 11: 537.
11- Kourmousi N, Kounenou K, Pezirkianidis C, Kalamatianos A, Chrousos GP. Validation of Perceived Stress Scale-10 Among Greek Middle Adolescents: Associations Between Stressful Life Events and Perceived Stress. Social Sciences. 2025 May 28; 14(6): 344.
12- Erlena E, Nurjannah I, Achadiono DN, Wibawa T, Prihastari L. Indonesian Version Of The Perceived Stress Scale-10 (IPSS): A Psychometric Properties Of The Indonesian PSS-10 in Adolescents With Obesity. medRxiv. 2025 Feb 27: 2025-02.
13- Hakim AR, Mora L, Leometa CH, Dimala CP. Psychometric properties of the perceived stress scale (PSS-10) in Indonesian version. JP3I (Jurnal Pengukuran Psikologi dan Pendidikan Indonesia). 2024 Nov 9; 13(2): 117-29
14- Reis D, Lehr D, Heber E, Ebert DD. The German version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10): evaluation of dimensionality, validity, and measurement invariance with exploratory and confirmatory bifactor modeling. Assessment. 2019 Oct; 26(7): 1246-59.
15- Klein EM, Brähler E, Dreier M, Reinecke L, Müller KW, Schmutzer G, Wölfling K, Beutel ME. The German version of the Perceived Stress Scale–psychometric characteristics in a representative German community sample. BMC psychiatry. 2016 Dec; 16:1-0.
16- Taylor JM. Psychometric analysis of the ten-item perceived stress scale. Psychological assessment. 2015 Mar; 27(1): 90. doi:‌10.1037/a0038100
17- Santos-Vitti L, Nakano T, Faro A, Baptista MN, Vasconcelos MM. Perceived Stress Assessment: Factor Structure and Item Analysis of the PSS-10. Acta Colombiana de Psicología. 2024 Jun; 27(1): 63–77. doi:10.14718/ACP.2024.27.1.4
18- Nielsen T, Dammeyer J. Measuring higher education students’ perceived stress: An IRT-based construct validity study of the PSS-10. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2019 Dec 1; 63:17-25. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.06.007
19- Yousefi, N., Pirkhaefi, A.R. Evaluation of the Bifactor Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model of Dimensionality and Value of Sub-Domains of Psychological Scale. Clinical Psychology and Personality, 2025; 23(1): 215-244.
20- Zahra NS, Faturochman F, Putra MD, Wirawan H. Beyond a Unidimensional Measure: Unveiling the Multidimensional Structure of the Perceived Stress Scale. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives. 2025 Mar 14:1-1.
21- Makhubela, M. (2022). Assessing psychological stress in South African university students: Measurement validity of the perceived stress scale (PSS-10) in diverse populations. Current Psychology. 2022; 41(5): 2802-2809.
22- Jiang C, Ma H, Luo Y, Fong DY, Umucu E, Zheng H, Zhang Q, Liu X, Liu X, Spruyt K, Meng R. Validation of the Chinese version of the Perceived Stress Scale-10 integrating exploratory graph analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. General Hospital Psychiatry. 2023 Sep 1; 84: 194-202. doi:‌10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2023.07.008
23- Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal. 2009 Jul 14; 16(3): 397-438.
24- Morin AJ, Arens AK, Marsh HW. A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant. psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2016 Jan 2; 23(1): 116-39.
25- Borsboom D, Cramer AO. Network analysis: an integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annual review of clinical psychology. 2013 Mar 28; 9(1): 91-121.
26- Opsahl T, Agneessens F, Skvoretz J. Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social networks. 2010 Jul 1; 32(3): 245-51.
27- Epskamp S, Borsboom D, Fried EI. Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behavior research methods. 2018 Feb; 50:195-212.
28- Bzdok D, Krzywinski M, Altman N. Machine learning: supervised methods. Nature methods. 2018; 15(4): 233–234.
29- Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford publications; 2015 Jan 7. https://www.guilford.com/books/Confirmatory-Factor-Analysis-for-Applied-Research/Timothy-Brown/9781462515363
30- Marsh HW, Morin AJ, Parker PD, Kaur G. Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual review of clinical psychology. 2014 Mar 28; 10(1):85-110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
31- Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary Journal. 1999 Jan 1; 6(1): 1-55.
32- Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling. 2002 Apr 1; 9(2): 233-55.
33- Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal. 2007 Jul 31;14(3):464-504.
34- Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. Psychology Press; 2013 Sep 5. https://books.google.com/books?id=AcWQtfGjCawC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
35- Reckase MD, Reckase MD. Unidimensional item response theory models. Multidimensional item response theory. 2009: 11-55.
36- Golino HF, Epskamp S. Exploratory graph analysis: A new approach for estimating the number of dimensions in psychological research. PloS one. 2017 Jun 8; 12(6):e0174035.
37- Farahani, H. Network analysis in psychological research with application and interpretation of R software. Clinical Psychology and Personality, 2021; 19(1): 193-200.
38- Von Davier AA, Mislevy RJ, Hao J, editors. Computational psychometrics: New methodologies for a new generation of digital learning and assessment: With examples in R and Python. Springer Nature; 2022.
39- Schafer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods. 2002; 7 (2): 147-77.
40- Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012; 48(2): 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
41- Van Buuren S. Flexible imputation of missing data. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429492259
42- Graham JW. Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009; 60: 549-76. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530
43- Yousefi, N., Pirkhaefi, A.R. Rasch Model Analysis of the Psychometric Properties of the Positive Mental Health Scale in Students. Clinical Psychology and Personality, 2024; 22(2): 341-366.
44- Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2016. ISBN: 9781462523346
45- Maydeu-Olivares A. Goodness-of-fit assessment of item response theory models. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective. 2013; 11(3): 71-101.
46- Roberti JW, Harrington LN, Storch EA. Further psychometric support for the 10-item version of the Perceived Stress Scale. J Coll Couns. 2006; 9(2): 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2006.tb00100.x
47- Yarkoni T, Westfall J. Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine learning. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017; 12(6): 1100–1122.
48- Chen J, Ding C, Zhang J, Shi Y. Machine learning in psychometrics: Applications and prospects. Front Psychol. 2020;11: 583. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00583