CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The present study aims to investigate the moderating effect of
psychological capital on reactions to stress. This chapter gives a detailed
account of the research method used to carry out the study. The
description of various methodological aspects has been presented under
various headings:
• Sample
• Measuring Instruments
• Administration and scoring of the measures
• Statistical Analyses
Sample:
The sample of the study consisted of 400 (172 males and 228 females)
participants from Delhi, National Capital Region (NCR) and Haryana. Of
400, Sample comprise of 84 (51 males, 33 females) students; 94 (32 males,
62 females) Teachers; 92 (38 males, 54 females) Health Care Professionals
(HCPs); 80 (51 males, 29 females) in service and 50 Housewives. The
sample was drawn using random sampling from various institutions and
organisations such as Amity University Noida, Guru Jambheshwar
University Hisar, Govt. P. G. College Hisar, Vaish College Bhiwani, Vaish Sr.
Sec. School Bhiwani, Govt. schools of Hisar and Bhiwani, L.I.C. of India
Hisar, various hospitals of Haryana and NCR. The age of the participants
ranged between 18 and 65 years. The education of both male and female
participants ranged from higher secondary to doctorate degree. The
participants belonged to varied socio-economic backgrounds ranging from
lower middle to higher classes. The table (i) below provides the detailed
distribution of sample:
93
Table (i): Distribution of sample
Profession Males Females Total %
Teachers 32 62 94 23.5 %
Health Care Professionals (HCPs) 38 54 92 23 %
Students 51 33 84 21 %
Service 51 29 80 20 %
Housewives - 50 50 12.5 %
Total sample 172 228 400
Measuring Instruments:
Psychological Capital – The following four separate measures i.e. self-
efficacy, hope, optimism, and resiliency were used to measure
psychological capital:
Hope Scale
The Hope Scale is a 12-item measure of a respondent’s level of hope. It was
developed by Snyder, Harris, Anderson, Holleran, Irving, Sigmon,
Yoshinobu, Langelle and Harney (1991). The purpose of the scale was to
assess respondent’s level of hope. The scale is divided into two subscales
that comprise Snyder’s cognitive model of hope: (1) Agency (i.e., goal-
directed energy) and (2) Pathways (i.e., planning to accomplish goals). Out
of the 12 items, 4 make up the Agency subscale and 4 make up the
Pathways subscale. The remaining 4 items are fillers. Each item is
answered using an 8-point Likert-type scale ranging from Definitely False
to Definitely True. Item numbers 2, 9, 10, and 12 make up the agency
subscale (e.g. I energetically pursue my goals, My past experiences have
prepared me well for my future, I’ve been pretty successful in life, I meet
the goals that I set for myself). Item numbers 1, 4, 6, and 8 make up the
94
pathway subscale (I can think of many ways to get out of a jam, There are
lots of ways around any problem, I can think of many ways to get the
things in life that are important to me, Even when others get discouraged, I
know I can find a way to solve the problem). The scale can be scored for
two subscales as well as for total scale. Using an 8-point continuum, scores
can range from a low of 8 to a high of 64 for the total hope score and scares
can range from a low of 4 to a high of 32 for the subscales.
The alpha coefficient for scale is .80 for several studies; moreover, the four
agency items load principally on one factor and the four pathways items
load principally on another. Likewise, the dispositional hope scale has
evidenced construct and discriminant validity through several studies
(Snyder et al., 1991).
General Self-efficacy Scale (GSE)
General Self-efficacy Scale is a 10-item scale designed to assess a general
sense of perceived self-efficacy and to assess optimistic self-beliefs used to
cope with a variety of demands in life. The scale was originally developed
by Jerusalem and Schwarzer in 1981 in Germany and has been translated
into many languages. Subjects were asked to respond for self-efficacy, i.e.,
the belief that one’s actions are responsible for successful outcomes, on a
four point continuum (1 = not at all true, to 4 = exactly true), such that
scores can range from a low of 4 to a high of 40. Higher scores indicate
stronger belief in self-efficacy.
Studies have shown that the GSE has high reliability, stability, and
construct validity (Leganger et al., 2000; Schwarzer, Mueller, & Greenglass,
1999). The scale was found to be configurally equivalent across 28 nations,
and it forms only one global dimension (Leganger et al., 2000; Scholz et al,.
2002). Cronbach alpha ranges from 0.75 to 0.94 across a number of
different language versions (Rimm & Jerusalem 1999; Luszczynska et al.,
2005). Relations between the GSE and other social cognitive variables
95
(intention, implementation of intentions, oucome expectations, and self-
regulation) are high and confirm the validity of the scale (Luszczynska et
al., 2005). The scale’s alpha reliability is reported 0.85 by the author.
Criterion-related validity is documented in numerous correlation studies
where positive coefficients were found with favourable emotions,
dispositional optimism, and work satisfaction. Negative coefficients were
found with depression, anxiety, stress, burnout, and health complaints.
Research and clinical use - Consisting of only 10 items, the GSE is easy to
administer and interpret. The scale measures one global dimension of self-
efficacy with high reliability and validity.
14-item Resilience Scale (RS-14)
The RS-14 was developed by Wagnild (2009) and consists of 14 items. The
scale is intended to assess the capacity to withstand life stressors, to thrive
and make meaning from challenges. Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The total score range
from 14 to 98. This short form of the scale is an offshoot of the 25 items
scale and measures similar psychological concept.
The original 25-item Resilience Scale (RS) was developed by Wagnild and
Young (1993) to evaluate the levels of resilience in the general population.
The RS is a reliable and valid tool to measure resilience that has been used
with a wide range of study populations and regarded as the best
assessment method to evaluate resilience in the adolescent population,
due to good psychometric properties and applications in a variety of age
groups (Ahern et al., 2006; Wagnild, 2009). The short version of the RS
(RS-14) was developed to provide clinicians and researchers a shorter
instrument to reduce participant’s burden.
The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale is 0.81. The internal
consistency of the RS-14 has been reported to be excellent (α = .93) and it
correlates strongly (r = .97) with the original RS (Wagnild, 2009). The
96
factor analysis of the RS-14 resulted in one strong factor solution
(Wagnild, 2009) which was also found in a later study (Nishi et al., 2010).
The RS-14 has shown similar negative correlations with depression and
anxiety (Abiola & Udofia, 2011), and positive correlations with self-
actualization and stress management (Wagnild, 2009) as the original RS.
The scale has content and constructs validity demonstrated by Wagnild
(2009). The RS-14 is strongly concurrent correlated with the RS (r=.97,
p<.001) and moderately correlated with depressive symptoms (r=-.41) and
life satisfaction (r=.37) (Wagnild & Young, 1993). A study was conducted
to determine the reliability and validity of RS and RS-14 in Nigerians as a
tool that can assess protective factors or resources (Nishi, Uehara, Kondo,
& Matsuoka, 2010). They found resilience as measured by both the RS and
RS-14 to be negatively correlated with both depressive and anxiety
symptoms.
Life Orientation Test – Revised (LOT-R)
The Life Orientation Test – Revised (LOT-R) was developed by Scheier,
Carver and Bridges in 1994. The scale consists of 10 items and purports to
assess individual differences in generalized optimism versus pessimism.
This measure has been used in a good deal of research on behavioural,
affective and health consequences of the Optimism/Pessimism dimension.
LOT-R is a revised version of the original LOT (Scheier & Carver, 1992).
The original LOT had 12 items: 4 worded positively, 4 worded negatively,
and 4 fillers. In LOT-R, there are 10 items, out of these four are filler items
and six are scale items where 3 items measure optimism and 3 items
measure pessimism. Every item on the LOT-R is just an easy explanation of
a symptom of either optimism (In uncertain times, I usually expect the
best) or pessimism (I hardly ever expect things to go my way).
Respondents are asked to indicate their level of agreement with each of the
items on a 4-point scale, using the response format, “strongly agree” to
97
“strongly disagree”. Each symptom item has five possible answer choices:
0 = strongly disagree (I disagree a lot), 1 = disagree (I disagree a little), 2 =
neutral (I neither agree nor disagree), 3 = agree (I agree a little), and 4 =
strongly agree (I agree a lot). The test includes three positively worded
and three negatively worded items (these are reverse coded). Items 3, 7,
and 9 are reverse scored (or scored separately as a pessimism measure).
Items 2, 5, 6, and 8 are fillers and should not be scored. This gives a
possible range of 0-24, with higher scores indicating more optimism. For
each assessment, there is a scoring algorithm leading to one of the three
acuity ranges: low, moderate or high. A total score of ‘19-24’ indicates
‘High Optimism’; score of ‘14-18’ indicates ‘Moderate Optimism’ and a total
score of ‘0-13’ indicates ‘Low Optimism’.
Cronbach's alpha for the entire 6 items of the scale was .78, suggesting the
scale has an acceptable level of internal consistency for LOT-R for an
undergraduate sample. The internal reliability coefficients for subscales
were .62 (Optimism) and .78 (Pessimism). The test-retest
correlations were .68, .60, .56 and .79, suggesting that the scale is stable
across time.
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)
The Perceived Stress Scale was developed by Cohen, Kamarck and
Mermelstein (1983). It consists of 10 items to measure participants'
appraisal of situations in their life as stressful perceived in last one month.
In each case, respondents are asked how often they felt a certain way. The
items are simple and very easy to understand and the response
alternatives are even easy to catch and understand. Further, the questions
are simple and of general nature and relatively, they are free of content
associated to any population group.
To assess the degree to which people perceive their lives as stressful,
respondents are asked to indicate how often they have found their lives
98
unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded in the previous month (e.g.,
How often have you been upset due to something that happened
suddenly?, “In the previous month, how often have you were nervous and
“stressed”?”). These items assess the frequency of stressful events that
occurred in the past month on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often).
Each item has 5 possible answers choice: 0 = Never; 1 = Almost Never; 2 =
Sometimes; 3 = Fairly often; 4 = Very often. PSS-10 scores are received by
reversing the scores on the four items, 4, 5, 7, and 8 e.g., 0=4, 1=3, 2=2, etc.
and then adding all 10 items. A higher total score indicates more stress.
The scale demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .78)
and was predictive of psychological symptoms, physical health symptoms,
and use of health care services. Researchers have demonstrated that the
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) can be used to determine if stress is an
etiological risk factor in disorders or disease (Cohen et al., 1983). As far as
validity is concerned, PSS correlates in a predicted way with other
measure of stress such as Job Responsibilities Scale and life events scales.
Daily Hassles scale
The daily hassles scale was developed by Lazarus and Folkman in 1989
and consists of 117 items. It was developed to measure the frequency and
severity of a person's transactions with the environment that are
considered by the person to be stressful events. Respondents are asked to
indicate the severity of the daily hassles as they have faced in the past
month. The scale takes roughly 5-10 minutes to complete. It can be
administered individually or in group setting. The simplicity of the
directions and item wording makes the instrument easy to self-administer.
For the Daily Hassles Scale respondents use the following four-point scale:
0 = none or did not occur, 1 = somewhat severe, 2 = moderately severe, 3=
extremely severe.
To determine the stability of the hassles scores, scores from each
successive pair of time periods in the Kanner et al. (1981) study were
99
correlated and then averaged over the nine month period. Hassles
frequency score were quite stable over this time period (r =.79),
suggesting that hassles scores have both trait and state characteristics,
each reflecting, empirically and theoretically, a different side of the same
coin. The average of the correlations between monthly frequency scores (r
=.79) was significantly higher than the average monthly severity scores (r
=.48). This difference may have resulted from the fact that, although
overall hassles frequency showed considerable stability over time, subjects
may not have endorsed the same hassles item from month to month.
Preliminary data comparing the daily hassles scale with the hassles
portion of the combined hassles and uplifts scale show modest but
significant correlation between the two scales. In an unpublished study
with 64 college students, correlation between the two scales was .43 for
frequency and .54 for severity. Mean frequency for hassles on the
combined scale was 21.69, with the standard deviation of 7.25; and mean
severity was 1.61, with the standard deviation of .37. A correlation of .60
between the two scales with a large sample of 448 subjects and also fairly
similar relationships with psychological symptoms and somatic health for
the two scales were reported.
Bell Adjustment Inventory (BAI)
Bell Adjustment Inventory was developed by Bell (1961) which comprises
of 160 items. It is a self-reporting questionnaire in ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘?’ format to
measure the total level of adjustment (Here ‘adjustment ‘ refers to
‘maladjustment’). This test can be used as screening tool for the poorly
adjusted persons, college and university students and adults. There are
two forms: one for students (grade 9 through college) and one for adults.
Respondents are asked to indicate the level of adjustment in their lives. It
measures the five areas of personal and social adjustment i.e. home, health,
social, emotional, and occupational. Home adjustment is expressed in
100
terms of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with home life, Health adjustment in
terms of illness and poor health condition, social adjustment in terms of
shyness, submissiveness, introversion; Emotional adjustment in terms of
depression, nervousness, phobia and pathological anxiety and
Occupational adjustment in terms of persons adaptation to their work. The
administration of this scale takes 40-45 minutes. The scores were obtained
by using scoring stencils. Low scores are indicative of better adjustment,
except in case of social subscale where high scores are indicative of better
adjustment. However, total score was considered for the present study
where high score indicate poor adjustment and low scores reflect more
adjustment.
The reliability coefficients varied from .72 to .92 for various areas of
adjustment determined by different methods. Both internal consistency
and the temporal-stability of the inventory were determined by using odd-
even reliability with Spearman-Brown formula and test-retest technique.
The test-retest reliability ranges between .81 and .88; Split-half reliability
ranges between .82 and .92 for different dimensions and total adjustment
scores. Cross validation of the scale with K. Kumar’s adjustment inventory
resulted in Pearson’s r of .72, .79, .82 and .81 for home, health, social and
emotional areas respectively.
Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II)
BDI-II is a 21- item self-report instrument which was developed by Beck,
Steer and Brown in 1996. It purports to measure presence and severity of
depression in psychiatrically diagnosed adults and adolescents 13 years of
age and older. This latest revised edition replaces the BDI and the BDI-1A.
It includes items which are intended to index symptoms of severe
depression, which would need hospitalization. In BDI-II, Items show
increase or decrease in sleep and appetite, items which were labelled body
image, work difficulty, weight loss, and somatic preoccupation were
101
changed and replaced with items labelled agitation, concentration
difficulty and loss of energy. The BDI-II takes just 5 minutes to complete
and it is more clinically sensitive than ever. Each item is a list of four
statements arranged in increasing severity about a particular symptom of
depression. These new items of BDI-II are in alignment with DSM-IV
criteria. Current DSM-IV guidelines require assessing depression
symptoms over the previous two weeks. The time frame for the response
set in the new edition was changed from one week to two to comply.
The coefficient alphas in case of BDI-II (.92 for outpatients and .93 for
college students) were higher than of the BDI- 1A (.8 6). Test-retest
reliability was studied using the responses of 26 outpatients who were
tested at first and second therapy sessions with one week difference. There
was a correlation of .93, which was significant at p < .001. In relation to
construct validity, the convergent validity of the BDI-II was calculated by
administration of the BDI-1A and the BDI-II to two sub-samples of
outpatients (N=191). The presentation order was counterbalanced and at
least one other measure was administered in-between the two versions of
the BDI, yielding a correlation of .93 (p<.001) and means of 18.92 (SD =
11.32) and 21.888 (SD = 12.69) the mean BDI-II score being 2.96 points
higher than BDI-1A. This is a valid instrument and has the coefficient of
correlation from .47 to .71 for varied criterion measures.
Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI)
The Beck Anxiety Inventory has been developed by Beck and steer (1993).
It is a well-accepted and renowned self-report measure of anxiety in case
of adults for use in both clinical and research settings. It consists of
21multiple-choice items which are used to measure the severity of an
individual's anxiety. As the items in the BAI explain the emotional,
physiological, and cognitive symptoms of anxiety but not depression, so it
can differentiate anxiety from depression. Although the age range for the
102
measure is between 17 to 80 years, even though, it can be used with
adolescents with 12 years and above. Each of the items of BAI is an easy
explanation of a symptom of anxiety in one of its four presented aspects:
(1) subjective, (2) neurophysiologic, (3) autonomic or (4) panic-related. It
requires only a basic reading level, which can be used with individuals
with intellectual disabilities, and which can be completed in 5 - 10 minutes
using the pre-printed paper form and pencil. Respondents are questioned
the extent to which the item on the scale bothers to them. Every symptom
item has four possible answers: not at all; mildly (It did not bother me
much); moderately (It was very unpleasant, but I could stand it), and;
severely (I could barely stand it).
The scale is psychometrically approved and its internal steadiness
(Cronbach’s alpha) ranges from .92 to .94 for adults and test-retest (one
week interval) reliability is .75. Synchronized validity with the Hamilton
Anxiety Rating Scale, Revised is .51. The construct validity for state and
trait anxiety subscales was found .58 and .47, respectively. The BAI has
also been expressed to hold acceptable reliability and convergent and
discriminate validity for both 14-18 year inpatients and outpatients.
Aggression Questionnaire (AQ)
AQ is a popular measure of aggression in adults. The questionnaire was
developed by Buss and Perry (1992). It is a 29 items questionnaire which
measures 4 dimensions of aggression i.e. Physical Aggression (9 items),
Verbal Aggression (5 items), Anger (7 items) and Hostility (8 items). Out of
four dimensions, anger was used in the present study. From this
questionnaire, seven items (e.g. sometimes I fly off the handle for no good
reason, I have trouble controlling my temper, I am sometimes eaten up
with jealousy) were used to measure anger. Participants are asked to
respond certain statements along a 5-point continuum from "0 = extremely
uncharacteristic of me", 1 = uncharacteristic of me, 2 = neither
103
characteristic nor uncharacteristic of me, 3 = characteristic of me, 4 =
extremely characteristic of me. Sum of item no. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and
21 gives the total score for anger. Overall score range, 29-145 and Anger
aggression scale range 7-35 with a higher score indicates high anger.
One sample of 372 subjects was tested twice, the interval being 9 weeks.
The test-retest correlations were as follows: Physical aggression, .80;
Verbal Aggression, .76; Anger, .72; and Hostility, .72 (total score = .80). For
scales with a relatively small number of items, these coefficients suggest
adequate stability over time. The correlations of aggression scales,
particularly the dimension of anger with various personality traits are:
Emotionality (.43); Activity (.22); Impulsiveness (.42); Sociability (-.08);
Assertiveness (.40); Competitiveness (.32); Public self-consciousness (.16);
Private self-consciousness (-.03); and Self-esteem (-.14), respectively.
Administration and scoring of the measures
As there are 10 scales used in the present study, so, all the measuring
instruments were taken together to make one questionnaire and were
administered in two settings to cope with elements of fatigue. All the
instruments were designed and formatted in a simple manner with clear
instructions written on the top of the each scale. The instructions and
administration procedures were same for all the subjects, and in
accordance with that describe by the respective test authors. Optimal font
size was used to give the participants an ease to fill and complete the
questionnaires. After getting consent from the participants, questionnaires
were distributed and clear instructions were given to them. A good rapport
was established with them in order to get real position on the measuring
instruments. They were told about the importance of the study and that
the data collected will not be made public, rather confidentiality of their
responses will be maintained. Subjects were informed that their position
on different behavioural measures would be intimated to them, if they
desire so.
104
The general testing conditions were satisfactory and atmosphere was
uniform all through. Subjects were encouraged to respond in a realistic
way without rumination on all tests too much. An optimal time was
provided to complete the questionnaires however participants were
suggested to give their first response for the questions. For the present
study, data was collected both in group and individual settings. After the
successful administration of tests and data collection, all the
questionnaires were scored using appropriate scoring keys.
For ‘The Hope Scale’, scoring is done by summing up all the items of the
scale to obtain a total score. Using an 8-point continuum, scores can range
from a low of 8 to a high of 64 for the total hope score. In ‘General Self-
efficacy Scale’, subjects respond on a four point continuum (1 = not at all
true, to 4 = exactly true). Scoring is done by summing up all the 10 items
such that scores can range from a low of 4 to a high of 40. In ‘RS-14’, each
item is rated on a 7-point Likert scale, adding all the items we get a total
score ranging from 14 to 98. In Life orientation test-revised (LOT-R),
respondents are asked to indicate their level of agreement with each of the
items on a 4-point scale. The test includes three positively worded and
three negatively worded items (these are reverse coded). Items 3, 7, and 9
are reverse scored (or scored separately as a pessimism measure). Items
2, 5, 6, and 8 are fillers and should not be scored. This gives a possible
range of 0-24, with higher scores indicating more optimism. For each
assessment, there is a scoring algorithm leading to one of the three acuity
ranges: low, moderate or high. A total score of ‘19-24’ indicates ‘High
Optimism’; score of ‘14-18’ indicates ‘Moderate Optimism’ and a total score
of ‘0-13’ indicates ‘Low Optimism’.
The total scores of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) were obtained by
summing up all the items, with items number 4, 5, 7, and 8 were reversed-
scored. Higher scores reflected higher and longer duration of stress. For
Daily life – hassles scale, scoring is accomplished by summing all the scores
105
for 117 items and obtaining a total score of severity of daily hassles. In this
way, the score can range 0- 351. Total score of zero would mean no hassle
and total score of 351 would mean extremely severe hassle for the person
in the past month.
For, ‘Beck Anxiety Inventory’, using a four-point continuum, the values for
each item is added up to yield the total score for all 21 symptoms that can
range in-between 0 to 63 points. The score of 0 - 7 is interpreted as a
"Minimal" level of anxiety; 8 - 15 as "Mild"; 16 - 25 as "Moderate", and; 26 -
63 as "Severe". In the same way, for ‘BDI-II’, every item is rated on a 4
point scale ranging in-between 0 to 3 in terms of severity. The scores are
obtained by summing up all the 21 items in the scale. The total score of 0-
13 is considered minimal range, 14-19 is mild, 20-28 is moderate, and 29-
63 is severe.
Bell Adjustment Inventory has five different measures of personal and
social adjustment viz. home, health, social, emotional and occupational
adjustment. One point is given to every ‘yes’ responses. Scoring is done
with the help of scoring key. The scores obtained in each areas like home,
health, social, emotional and occupational were added together to
determine the total level of adjustment. Higher score indicates lesser
adjustment in the particular area. Lower score would mean that the
respondent is well- adjusted and a higher would mean that he/ she is
poorly -adjusted. For the scoring of dimension of Anger in Buss and Perry
aggression questionnaire, sum of item no. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 was
done that gives the total score for anger. Overall score range, 29-145 and
Anger aggression scale range 7-35 with a higher score indicates high
anger. Scored data was analysed and results were interpreted for the
present study.
Statistical Analyses
The obtained data were subjected to various statistical analyses. It was
analysed for descriptive statistics, Pearsonian inter-correlations, and
106
Moderated hierarchical regression to examine the moderating effects of
psychological capital. Moderated regression is an extended application of
multiple regression analysis wherein independent and moderator
variables can be entered in different equation blocks with an automatic
control over the inflative effects of initially entered independent variables.
It was used to assess the interactive effect between Stress and
psychological capital (Hope, self-efficacy, resilience and optimism) and
whether or not such an effect is significant in predicting reactions to stress
(Depression, Anxiety, Adjustment and Anger). The first step of hierarchy
(block-1) entered with stress, four constructs of Psychological Capital as
predictors of reactions to stress. The second step of the hierarchy (block-
2) was entered with the interactive products of stress and psychological
capital domains as moderators of reactions to stress.
107