Stress Diagnostic Survey

Abstract

The Stress Diagnostic Survey (SDS) is a widely utilized instrument developed by Ivancevich and Matteson (1980) designed to measure employee tension derived from specific organizational and individual-level stressors. The scale comprises 30 items distributed across six distinct subscales, each containing five items. These subscales assess critical sources of occupational stress, including role ambiguity, role conflict, quantitative role overload, qualitative role overload, concerns related to career development, and responsibility for people. Beyond its utility in diagnosing specific stress factors, the SDS can also be aggregated to provide a robust composite indicator of general job stressors present in the work environment (Nelson & Sutton, 1990).

Keywords

Stress Diagnostic Survey, SDS, job stressors, organizational stress, role theory, role overload, role ambiguity, role conflict, employee tension, career development, organizational psychology.

Authors

Ivancevich, J., Matteson, M.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Stress Diagnostic Survey (SDS) is to systematically identify and quantify the frequency with which specific, identifiable individual-level work conditions act as sources of stress for employees. It provides a detailed profile across six dimensions, allowing organizations and researchers to pinpoint the exact nature of the stress being experienced, rather than just measuring overall psychological distress.

By using a seven-point frequency scale, the SDS enables respondents to indicate how often each condition is a source of stress, thereby providing actionable data for organizational interventions aimed at mitigating adverse working conditions and improving employee well-being and productivity.

Construct

The SDS measures the construct of perceived individual-level organizational job stressors, rooted primarily in organizational role theory. It operationalizes this construct through six factors, each assessed by five items:

• Role Ambiguity: Measures the degree of uncertainty regarding job duties, objectives, expectations, and reporting relationships.
• Role Conflict: Measures the experience of contradictory or conflicting demands from different individuals or groups within the organization.
• Quantitative Role Overload: Measures the sheer volume of work, including having too many tasks, unmanageable assignments, or needing to work excessive hours.
• Qualitative Role Overload: Measures the perceived difficulty or complexity of assigned tasks relative to the employee’s skills, abilities, or training.
• Concerns about Career Development: Measures anxiety or dissatisfaction regarding opportunities for advancement, growth, and learning within the current organization.
• Responsibility for People: Measures the stress associated with accountability for the safety, well-being, development, or careers of other employees.

Validity

The validity of the SDS has been supported across various organizational studies through correlational analysis. Measures of job tension derived from the SDS demonstrated expected patterns of correlation with related psychological outcomes (Deluga, 1991; Rush et al., 1985).

Specifically, job tension scores exhibited positive correlations with factors such as pressure for change, the use of “hard” upward-influence strategies by subordinates, and the employee’s expressed intention to quit the organization. Conversely, job tension was found to correlate negatively with positive organizational outcomes, including job satisfaction, job involvement, and the perception of job challenge.

Furthermore, when used as a composite measure, the SDS correlated negatively with employee job mastery and positively with both concurrent and future period distress symptoms (Nelson & Sutton, 1990), supporting its predictive validity regarding psychological strain resulting from job stressors.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the Stress Diagnostic Survey is reported as generally strong across its various dimensions. Studies have confirmed robust internal reliability for both the individual subscales and the composite score.

The Coefficient alpha values for the six subscales—role ambiguity, role conflict, quantitative overload, qualitative overload, concerns about career development, and responsibility for people—typically ranged from .68 to .85 (Deluga, 1991; Rush et al., 1985).

The reliability for the overall, composite measure of stress was reported to be exceptionally high, with a Coefficient alpha of .93 (Nelson & Sutton, 1990), indicating excellent internal consistency when the measure is used as a single indicator of total job stress.

Factor Analysis

Based on its design, the Stress Diagnostic Survey utilizes a clear theoretical structure rooted in organizational role theory, positing six distinct stressor factors. Each of the 30 items is specifically assigned to one of the six subscales (five items per subscale).

This structure suggests that the scale operates based on a six-factor model corresponding to role ambiguity, role conflict, quantitative overload, qualitative overload, career development, and responsibility for people. Subsequent research utilizing the SDS has typically confirmed the utility and separation of these factors in measuring employee tension.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire, Psychological assessment tool

Format: 30 items, 7-point Likert-type frequency scale (ranging from 1 = never a source of stress to 7 = always a source of stress)

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Employed adults / Organizational employees (applicable across various industries and managerial levels)

Age Group: Adult (Generally 18+)

Population Details: Designed for use in organizational settings to assess individual perceptions of environmental and role-based stressors.

Test Methodology: Raw scores are summed for the five items within each of the six subscales. These subscale totals are compared against established benchmarks (Low, Moderate, High) to diagnose the severity of specific stressors.

Keywords

Organizational behavior, occupational health, psychological assessment, job involvement, job satisfaction, human resources, organizational roles, stress management, psychometrics.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1980

Permissions: The items were originally published in Ivancevich & Matteson (1980), Stress and work: A managerial perspective, and reprinted with permission. Researchers and commercial users should contact the original publisher (Scott, Foresman) or the authors for current licensing and usage permissions, especially for large-scale application.

Fee: Information regarding current licensing fees is not provided in the source material.

Reference’s

• Deluga, R. J. (1991). The relationship of upward-influence strategies, role ambiguity, and role conflict to job stress. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64(3), 199-207.
• Ivancevich, J., & Matteson, M. (1980). Stress and work: A managerial perspective. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Items were taken from text, pp. 118-120.
• Nelson, D. L., & Sutton, C. D. (1990). Chronic work stress and coping: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(1), 17-26.
• Rush, M. C., Schoel, L. M., & Bernard, L. F. (1985). Psychological type and work satisfaction: An investigation of the relationship between Jung’s typology and the Job Descriptive Index. Psychological Reports, 57(3), 971-984.

Items of the Stress Diagnostic Survey

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Instructions and items:

The following questionnaire is designed to provide you with an indication of the extent to which various individual-level stressors are sources of stress to you. For each item you should indicate the frequency with which the condition described is a source of stress.

Next to each item write the appropriate number which best describes how frequently the condition described is a source of stress.

Write 1 if the condition described is never a source of stress. Write 2 if it is rarely a source of stress.

Write 3 if it is occasionally a source of stress. Write 4 if it is sometimes a source of stress. Write 5 if it is often a source of stress.

Write 6 if it is usually a source of stress. Write 7 if it is always a source of stress.

1. My job duties and work objectives are unclear to me.
2. I work on unnecessary tasks or projects.
3. I have to take work home in the evenings or on weekends to stay caught up.
4. The demands for work quality made upon me are unreasonable.
5. I lack the proper opportunities to advance in this organization.
6. I am held accountable for the development of other employees.
7. I am unclear about whom I report to and/or who reports to me.
8. I get caught in the middle between my supervisors and my subordinates.
9. I spend too much time in unimportant meetings that take me away from my work.
10. My assigned tasks are sometimes too difficult and/or complex.
11. If I want to get promoted, I have to look for a job with another organization.
12. I am responsible for counseling with my subordinates and/or helping them solve their problems.
13. I lack the authority to carry out my job responsibilities.
14. The formal chain of command is not adhered to.
15. I am responsible for an almost unmanageable number of projects or assignments at the same time.
16. Tasks seem to be getting more and more complex.
17. I am hurting my career progress by staying with this organization.
18. I take action or make decisions that affect the safety or well-being of others.
19. I do not fully understand what is expected of me.
20. I do things on the job that are accepted by one person and not by others.
21. I simply have more work to do than can be done in an ordinary day.
22. The organization expects more of me than my skills and/or abilities provide.
23. I have few opportunities to grow and learn new knowledge and skills in my job.
24. My responsibilities in this organization are more for people than for things.
25. I do not understand the part my job plays in meeting overall organizational objectives.
26. I receive conflicting requests from two or more people.
27. I feel that I just don’t have time to take an occasional break.
28. I have insufficient training and/or experience to discharge my duties properly.
29. I feel that I am at a standstill in my career.
30. I have responsibility for the future (careers) of others.

Scoring Guide

Each item is associated with a specific individual-level stressor. The item numbers and the appropriate categories are listed below:

• Role Ambiguity: Items 1, 7, 13, 19, 25
• Role Conflict: Items 2, 8, 14, 20, 26
• Role Overload (Quantitative): Items 3, 9, 15, 21, 27
• Role Overload (Qualitative): Items 4, 10, 16, 22, 28
• Career Development: Items 5, 11, 17, 23, 29
• Responsibility for People: Items 6, 12, 18, 24, 30

The significance of the total score in each stressor category will vary from individual to individual. However, the following general guidelines may be used to provide perspective for each total score:

• Low Stress Levels: Total scores in a category of less than 10.
• Moderate Stress Levels: Total scores between 10 and 24.
• High Stress Levels: Total scores of 25 and greater.