Running Header: DAILY STRESS INVENTORY

Daily Stress Inventory

Part A: Two Standardized Tests
Molly Hayes
001122446
University of Lethbridge
June 29, 2014

DAILY STRESS INVENTORY

2
Introduction

The Daily Stress Inventory (DSI) is a self-administered psychological assessment tool

developed by Brantley, Waggoner, Jones, and Rappaport (1987). The DSI was designed to
measure the variable impact of minor stress events based on the theory of daily stress. The
current work outlines the theory of daily stress as it pertains to the intended usage of the DSI,
describes the DSI, its scoring and uses in the field of health psychology, provides an
understanding of issues of reliability and validity, highlights limitations of the DSI and elements
to consider when using the tool. To provide a conclusion, a personal reflection on the use of DSI
in counselling settings will be offered.
The Theory of Daily Stress
Cohen, Kessler, and Gordons (1995) model for stress explained that stressful
experiences contribute to an increased risk of physical disease and psychiatric disorders. The
exposure to and appraisal of stressful events by an individual causes the body to enter negative
affective states such as anxiety and depression, that have a direct influence on the biological
processes within the body that influence an individuals ability to fight infections and diseases
(Cohen et al., 1995). Cohen et al. (1995) also noted that stressful encounters also affect an
individuals ability to manage the psychological impact of other minor or major stressors. More
recent publications provide support of Cohen et al.s (1995) stress model including Cohen et al.s
(1998) findings that stress decreases individuals ability to fight infection of the common cold,
Miller, Chen, and Parkers (2011) positive correlation between stress exposure in childhood and
adult chronic disease, and the inclusion of stress and trauma related disorders in the fifth edition
of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) (2013).

DAILY STRESS INVENTORY

According to Brantley et al. (1987), early stress research focused mainly on the stressful
nature of major life events when examining the stress-disease and stress-disorder relationship.
Major life events occur infrequently, do not reflect immediate significance for individuals and
are therefore considered to be conceptually distal (DeLongis, Coyne, Dakof, Folkman, &
Lazarus, 1982). In contrast, minor stressors are more likely to occur on a monthly, weekly, or
even a daily basis (DeLongis et al., 1982; Brantley et al., 1987) and are conceptualized as
experiences and conditions of daily living that have been appraised as salient and harmful or
threatening to the endorsers well-being (Lazarus, 1984, p. 376). These short-term but often
ongoing stressors are subjective, but can be particularly impactful because they occur within
conceptual environments that are proximal and have an immediate and personal significance to
the individual (DeLongis et al., 1982). Due to the immediate and reoccurring nature of minor
stressors, researchers hypothesized that regular and minor stressors would have a greater impact
on the health and well-being of individuals, than distal major life events (Kanner, Coyne,
Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981; DeLongis et al., 1982; Lazarus, 1984; Brantley et al., 1987). In
response to the notion of minor stressors playing a role in the negative state of individual wellbeing, Kanner et al. (1981) developed the Hassles Scale to measure minor stressors on a monthly
basis. One main limitation of the Hassles Scale was its time-consuming administration process
(Brantley et al., 1987). Brantely et al. (1987) therefore developed the Daily Stress Inventory
(DSI) as a less lengthy psychometric tool to examine minor stress events on individuals.
The DSI
Description
The DSI is a daily, self-reported, psychometric tool to be used by researchers and
clinicians in the study and assessment of the individualized impact of minor stress events

DAILY STRESS INVENTORY

(Brantley et al., 1987). The DSI is designed for daily usage and consists of 58 questions that
pertain to sources of stress that are not characteristic of major life events and that are likely to
occur on a daily basis (Brantley et al., 1987). Brantley et al. (1987) used data collected from two
weeks worth of stress diary entries from 85 adults and selected items that were likely to occur on
any given day. DSI test-takers are asked to first document if an item (minor stress event)
occurred within the last 24 hours, and then to rank the severity of the events immediate impact
on a 1 to 7 Likert scale with a 1 score recognizing that the event occurred but did not cause any
perceived stress and a 7 score reflective of an impact that caused the individual to panic
(Brantley et al., 1987). In its pilot stages, the DSI was used for a period of up to 28 consecutive
days (Brantley et al., 1987) and for as little as 7 consecutive days (Brantley, Cocke, Jones, &
Goreczny, 1988a).
Scoring
The DSI derives three daily scores: a frequency score (FREQ) that indicates the number
of items on the inventory that have occurred within the last 24 hours, a sum score (SUM) that
specifies the total from the Likert scale scores of the impact of the stress events, and an average
score (AIR) that displays the average impact of the stressors mentioned in the inventory
(Brantley et al., 1987). The DSI also offers an optional item listing that the test-taker can use to
document two additional stressors from their day that are not given an official rank in the
scoring. The SUM and AIR scores are designed to assess the test-takers perception of the
stressors and the FREQ score measures events (Brantley et al., 1987). When examining more
than one day of DSI usage, Brantley et al. (1987) and Brantley et al. (1988a) suggested that
averages be calculated of each of the three scores. The DSI attempts to quantify the perception
and impact of minor stress events and was designed to assist clinicians and researchers in the

DAILY STRESS INVENTORY

drawing of connections between increased DSI scores and the presentation of physical and
psychological ailments (Brantley et al., 1987; Brantley et al., 1988a).
Samples
Pilot
In its preliminary phase, the DSI included 71 minor stress items and was administered to a
combined university student and general community sample of 418 test-takers (Brantley et al.,
1987). Resulting from this pilot, a few modifications were made to the DSI. Five items were
removed due to lack of test-taker endorsement, and eleven were removed due to lack of
correlation with overall test results (Brantley et al., 1987). However, upon further review
Brantley et al. (1987) re-introduced three test items on the basis that the test sample was majority
students and therefore the items reflected low frequency due to a lack of applicability to the
majority of the test sample.
Normative Data
To establish a normative sample, Brantley et al. (1987) enlisted undergraduate students to
seek out non-student adults in the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America area for
DSI administering. The DSI responses of 433 test-takers were comprised for the normative
sample (Brantley et al., 1987). The test-taker ages ranged 17 to 77 years with a mean age of 34.9
years and reflected a broad range of demographic indicators such as gender, occupation,
education, and martial status (Brantley et al., 1987). To establish standardization, test-takers
were requested to complete the tool at the same time each day for 28 days (Brantley et al., 1987).
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was completed to determine if there were gender
differences in DSI responses (Brantley et al., 1987). The one-way ANOVA showed a lack of
variance in FREQ scores between men and women, but did show significantly higher SUM and

DAILY STRESS INVENTORY

AIR scores for women suggesting that women generally rank test items events as more stressful
than men (Brantley et al., 1987).
Uses of the DSI
A review of the literature featuring the DSI highlights its use in the health psychology
field. In early research, the DSI was used in conjunction with various health-related checklists to
determine the correlation between daily stress and the onset of symptoms related to pre-existing
conditions such as Crohns disease (Garrett, Brantley, Jones, Tipton, & McKnight, 1991),
concussions (Gouvier, Cubic, Jones, Brantley, & Cutlip, 1992), migraine headaches (Holm,
Lokken, & Myers, 1997), weight gain in hemodialysis patients (Everett, Brantley, Sletten, Jones,
& McKnight, 1995). More recent uses of the DSI in research settings involve using the tool to
measure the impact of minor stresses on women during pregnancy (DiPietro, Ghera, Costigan, &
Hawkins, 2004), rheumatoid arthritis (VanDyck et al., 2004), sleep disturbances (Soffer-Dudek
& Shahar, 2011; Winzeler et al., 2014) and irritable bowel syndrome (Bayne, 2012).
Issues of Reliability and Validity
Drummond and Jones (2010) described reliability as the degree to which test scores are
dependable, consistent, and stable across items of a test, across different forms of the test, or
across repeat administrations of the test (p. 83). Drummond and Jones (2010) explained validity
as determining whether a test tool measures what it intends to measure. The following
subsections describe the reliability and validity of the DSI as described in the literature using the
measures indicated by Drummond and Jones (2010).
Internal Consistency Reliability
Internal consistency reliability examines content-sampling errors and assesses the extent
to which the test tool measures the same trait (Drummond & Jones, 2010). In the case of the DSI,

DAILY STRESS INVENTORY

internal consistency reliability measures whether the test items assess daily stress. Based on the
Chronbach alpha coefficient calculations of Brantley et al. (1987), the FREQ and SUM scores of
the DSI (0.83 and 0.87, respectively) reflect internal consistency. Although there is no evidence
supporting a split-half method of testing internal consistency reliability, it can be concluded that
the DSI test items are similar and provide a measure for the theory of daily minor stress.
Test-retest Reliability
Test-retest reliability measures the consistency of an individuals test scores through
repeated administrations of the test tool, involves correlating the first test administration to the
second test administration using the correlation coefficient of stability (Drummond & Jones,
2010). Because the DSI intends to measure the subjective nature of stress due to minor daily
events and is designed for daily administration (Brantley et al., 1987), the DSI often reflects
variation in test scores when measuring test-retest reliability (Brantley et al., 1988a). For
example, an individual may have indicated that the thought of unfinished work (Brantley et al.,
1987, p. 73) caused a minimal stress reaction on the first administration of the test, but during the
second administration the thought of the same unfinished work could cause much stress
(Brantley et al., 1987, p.73). Therefore due to the inventory nature of the DSI, test-retest
reliability is low.
Inter-rater Reliability
The DSI implies that higher FREQ, SUM, and AIR scores are associated with an
increased risk for the development of diseases (Brantley et al., 1988), decreased ability to fight
infection and heal from pre-existing conditions (Brantley et al., 1988; Gouvier et al.,1992).
However, because the DSI attempts to quantify subjective data, there is room for interpretation
of test results but test-scorers. Additionally, inter-rated reliability, the level of agreement

DAILY STRESS INVENTORY

amongst test-scorers (Drummond & Jones, 2010), has not been officially examined using the
DSI. It can therefore be deductively concluded that although it is not likely that administrators
would disagree with the daily minor stress theory if they had decided to use the DSI, inter-rater
reliability of the DSI cannot be confirmed.
Alternative Form of Reliability
Alternative form of reliability measures different forms of assessment tools that use test
items from the same content area (Drummond & Jones, 2010). Although there are no alternative
forms of the DSI (Brantley et al., 1988a), Kocalevent et al. (2009) studied the connection
between the exposure to relatively minor stressful events and stress reactions by comparing the
results of the DSI and three other similar inventories. The test-takers in Kocalevent et al.s
(2009) student completed all test tools, some in simultaneous administration and some in delayed
administration, and found a high correlation between the tests. Based on Kovalevent et al.s
(2009) work, it can be concluded that the DSI reflects content-sampling error, through delayed
administration, and time-sampling error, through simultaneous administration, and therefore the
DSI is reliable in the measure of alternative form.
Construct Validity
Drummond and Jones (2010) described assessment tool construct validity as the ability of
the test results of a certain tool to accurately reflect the construct being measured. Construct
validity of the DSI would therefore require the results of the DSI must represent the construct
that minor daily stress exposure contributes to negative experiences and that the overall impact
of daily stressors varies from day to day (Brantley et al., 1988a). Evidence that the DSI has
construct validity is highlighted by Brantley et al.s (1987) tests of homogeneity that reflected
high internal consistency of test items, and completion of DSI testing with different age groups.

DAILY STRESS INVENTORY

Similarly, Brantley et al. (1988a) found that the DSI is sensitive to differences between weekend
and weekday stressors, concluding that the DSI reflects the construct that stress is subjective and
variable over time and that such experiences with stress events contributes to an overall negative
impact on well-being.
Content Validity
Content validity refers to evidence of the relationship between a tests content and the
construct it is intended to measure (Drummond & Jones, 2010, p. 104). Drummond and Jones
(2010) explain evidence for content validity in terms of a process by test-developers that includes
determining the content domain, a test blueprint that guides development by signifying the
content areas that will be examined by the test, and finally the use of external assessors such as
experts in the field to analyze whether the test reflects the content field. Based on Brantley et
al.s (1987) DSI development process as outlined in previous sections, it can be concluded that
the DSI has content validity.
Criterion-related Validity
Criterion-related validity has two validity evidence types: concurrent validity which
refers to the degree to which a test correlates with a previously validated measure, and predictive
validity which refers to the degree that the test score estimates future outcomes (Drummond and
Jones, 2010). Brantley et al. (1987) assessed the DSIs concurrent validity by correlating the test
results of the DSI with the results of a similar tool called the global rating of stress, concluding
that the DSI SUM scores have concurrent validity with measures of daily stress. Brantley, Dietz,
McKnight, Jones, and Tulley (1988b) assessed the predictive validity of the DSI in their study of
the of effect minor stress events on endocrine measures of stress, finding that exposure to daily
stress, as measured by the DSI, predicts the release of stress hormones in the body. Similarly,

DAILY STRESS INVENTORY

10

researchers have found that the exposure to daily stress, as measured by the DSI, was predictive
of the onset of symptoms associated with conditions such as such as Crohns disease (Garrett et
al., 1991), concussions (Gouvier et al.,1992), migraines (Holm et al., 1997), weight gain (Everett
et al.,1997), rheumatoid arthritis (VanDyck, 2004), sleep disturbances (Soffer-Dudek & Shahar,
2011; Winezeler et al., 2014) and irritable bowel syndrome (Bayne, 2012). The DSI therefore
reflects criterion-related validity.
Limitations and Considerations
There are some limitations and considerations associated with the use of the DSI. Despite
the convenience of using self-administered assessment tools, an obvious limitation of tools such
as the DSI include a lack of ability to control the testing setting for time and location. Kaplan,
Sieber, and Ganiats (2007) found that the use of self-administered well-being assessments often
resulted in missing information, and lack of compliance. The use of the DSI as an at-home selfadministered assessment tool questions its ability to be a standardized test.
Brantley et al. (1987) noted in the preliminary stages of the DSI development that although
completing the DSI on a daily basis might help clinicians gain insight into an individuals stress
experiences, DSI scores may not be directly diagnostic of an individuals average stress
experiences and therefore suggests the DSI usage over a period of at least one week. In a similar
study with the Hassles Scale (Kanner et al., 1981), it was found a decrease in scores overtime
suggesting that perhaps a mindfulness variable is contributing to an individuals ability to control
their perspective or perception of minor stress events (Brantley et al., 1987).
In a follow-up study Brantely et al. (1988a) found a decrease of DSI scores on weekends,
suggesting that minor stress events occur less on weekends and reflect a lower stress reaction by
individuals. Further individual investigation into the types of stressors and stress reactions to

DAILY STRESS INVENTORY

11

events that occur on the weekends was recommended to gain a deeper understanding of external
factors in the lives of test-takers (Brantley et al., 1988a). Another consideration discovered by
Brantley et al. (1988a) is a spike in stress scores on the first day of DSI administered suggesting
that perhaps self-fulfilling prophecy is contributing to higher FREQ and SUM scores. Therefore
it would be important to use the DSI for at least one week and remove the deviating first day
from the over AIR score (Brantley et al., 1988a).
Personal Reflection and Conclusion
Based on the extensive work of Brantley et al. (1987), Brantley et al. (1988a), and
Brantley et al. (1988b) discussed in previous sections it can be concluded the DSI is reliable and
valid assessment tool for assessing the subjective impact of daily minor stress that legitimizes the
theory of minor stress. Despite the limitations of using self-administered tools highlighted by
Kaplan et al. (2007), the DSI appears to be an effective tool for examining the impact of minor
stress events on the well-being of individuals that could potentially assist in lowering overall
stress as found by Kanner, et al., 1981 with the Hassles Scale and with the DSI by Brantley et al.
(1987) and Brantley et al. (1988a). Although the literature features the DSI usage exclusively in
the health psychology field and typically in conjunction with other assessment tools that examine
specific symptoms, I can recognize potential uses of the tool in counselling settings. For
example, I would use the DSI as a scaling tool in cognitive-behavioural therapy practices by
drawing attention to the cognitions, emotions, and behaviours associated with the perception of
daily minor stress events. The DSI could also be used as an in-therapy intake inventory that
could provide counsellors with insight into the regular experiences of the client.

DAILY STRESS INVENTORY

12
References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Bayne, B. S. Irritable bowel syndrome and psychological stress. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/10210/7700
Brantley, P. J., Cocke, T. B., Jones, G. N., & Coreczny, A. J. (1988a). The daily stress inventory:
validity and effect of repeated administration. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioural Assessment, 10(1), 75-81. doi: 10.1007/BF00962987
Brantley, P. J., Dietz, L. S., McKnight, G. T., Jones, G. N., & Tulley, R. (1988b). Convergence
between the daily stress inventory and endocrine measures of stress. Journal of
Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 56(4), 549-551. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.56.4.549
Brantley, P. J., Waggoner, C. D., Jones, G. N., & Rappaport, N. B. (1987). A daily stress
inventory: development, reliability, and validity. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 10(1),
61-73. doi: 10.1007/BF00845128
Cohen, S., Frank, E., Doyle, W. J., Skoner, D. P., Rabin, B. C., & Gwaltney, J. M. (1998). Types
of stressors that increase susceptibility to the common cold in healthy adults. Health
Psychology, 17(3). Retrieved from
http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~scohen/types%20of%20stressors.pdf
Cohen, S., Kessler, R. C., Gordon, L.U. (1995). Strategies for measuring stress in studies of
psychiatric and physical disorders. Measuring stress: A Guide for Health and Social
Scientists. Retrieved from
http://kungfu.psy.cmu.edu/~scohen/Cohen,%20S%20et%20al%20(1995).pdf

DAILY STRESS INVENTORY

13

DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). The impact of daily stress on the health and
mood: psychological and social resources as mediators. Journals of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54(3), 486-496. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.3.486
DiPietro, J. A., Ghera, M. M., Costigan, K., & Hawkins, M. (2004). Measuring the ups and
downs of pregnancy stress. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 25(3-4),
189-201. doi: 10.1080/01674820400017830
Drummond, R. J., & Jones, K. D. (2010). Assessment Procedures for Counsellors and Helping
Professionals (7th Edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Everett, K. D., Brantley, P. J., Sletten, C., Jones, G. N., & McKnight, G. T. (1995). The relation
of stress and depression to interdialytic weight gain in hemodialysis patients. Behavioural
Medicine, 21(1), 25-30. doi: 10.1080/08964289.1995.9933739
Garrett, V. D., Brantley, P. J., Glenn, N. J., McKnight, G. P. (1991). The relation between daily
stress and Crohns Disease. Journal of Behavioual Medicine, 14(1), 87-96. doi:
10.1007/BF00844770
Gouvier, W. D., Cubic, B., Jones, G., Brantley, P., & Cutlip, Q. (1992). Postconcussion
symptoms and daily stress in normal and head-injured college populations. Archives of
Clinical Neuropsychology, 7(3), 193-211. doi: 10.1016/0887-6177(92)90162-G
Holm, J. E., Lokken, C., Myers, T. C., (1997). Migraine and stress: a daily examination of
temporal relationships in women and migraineurs. Headache: The Journal of Head and
Face Pain, 37(9), 553-558. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-4610.1997.3709553.x
Kaplan, R. M., Sieber, W. J., & Ganiats, T. G. (1997). The quality of well-being scale:
comparison of interviewer-administered version of a self-administered questionnaire.
Psychology & Health, 12(6), 783-791. doi: 10.1080/08870449708406739

DAILY STRESS INVENTORY

14

Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison of two modes of
stress measurement: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal of
Behavioural Medicine, 4(1), 1-39. doi: 10.1007/BF00844845
Kocalevent, R. D., Rose, M., Becker, J., Walter, O. B., Fliege, H., Bjorner, J. B., ... & Klapp, B.
F. (2009). An evaluation of patient-reported outcomes found computerized adaptive
testing was efficient in assessing stress perception. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,
62(3), 278-287. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.03.003
Lazarus, R. S. (1984). Puzzles in the study of daily hassles. Journal of Behavioural Medicine,
7(4), 375-389. doi: 10.1007/BF00845271
Miller, G. E., Chen, E., & Parker, K. J. (2011). Psychological stress in childhood and
susceptibility to the chronic diseases of aging: moving towards a model of behavioural
and biological mechanisms. Psychological bulletin, 137(6), 959-997. doi:
doi:10.1037/a0024768
Soffer-Dudek, N., & Shahar, G. (2011). Daily stress interacs with trait dissociation to predit
sleep-related experiences in young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120(3), 719729. doi: 10.1037/a0022941
VanDyke, M. M., Parker, J. C., Smarr, K. L., Hewett, J. E., Johnson, G. E., Slaughter, J. R., &
Walker, S. E. (2004). Anxiety in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 51(3),
408-412. doi: 10.1002/art.20474
Winzeler, K., Voellmin, A., Schafer, V., Meyer, A. H., Cajochen, C., Wilhelm, F. H., & Bader,
K. (2014). Daily stress, presleep arousal, and sleep in healthy young women: a daily life
computerized sleep diary and actigraphy study. Sleep Medicine, 15, 359-366. doi:
10.1016/j.sleep.2013.09.027