Stress-symptoms and well-being in children and adolescents: factor structure, measurement invariance, and validity of English, French, German, Russian, Spanish, and Ukrainian language versions of the SSKJ scales

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample Description and Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD) and Internal Consistencies (Cronbach’s α, McDonald's ω) for the Different Language Versions of the SSKJ 3–8 Stress-Symptom and Well-Being Scales.

	German (n = 3,150)	English (n = 684)	French (n = 318)	Russian (n = 376)	Spanish (n = 207)	Ukrainian (n = 492)
Age
M (SD)	11.14 (1.83)	11.54 (1.82)	12.02 (1.49)	12.46 (1.14)	11.46 (2.21)	13.03 (2.08)
Gender, n (%)
Male	1,563 (49.7%)	447 (65.5%)	165 (52.1%)	176 (47.1%)	108 (52.7%)	252 (51.3%)
Female	1,584 (50.3%)	235 (34.5%)	152 (47.9%)	198 (52.9%)	97 (46.9%)	239 (48.7%)
SOM, M (SD)	9.87 (2.79)	10.64 (2.90)	9.99 (2.80)	9.87 (2.67)	10.22 (2.69)	9.33 (2.46)
Internal consistency	.67 (.69)	.68 (.70)	.67 (.69)	.63 (.66)	.59 (.59)	.63 (.64)
ANG, M (SD)	7.38 (2.41)	7.90 (2.34)	7.33 (2.33)	6.80 (2.45)	6.64 (2.00)	6.99 (2.42)
Internal consistency	.79 (.80)	.78 (.80)	.77 (.80)	.82 (.81)	.61 (.65)	.83 (.83)
SAD, M (SD)	6.50 (2.19)	6.88 (2.27)	6.70 (2.40)	7.37 (2.42)	6.81 (2.22)	6.53 (2.04)
Internal consistency	.73 (.74)	.78 (.78)	.78 (.81)	.75 (.75)	.62 (.64)	.69 (.70)
ANX, M (SD)	7.58 (2.20)	8.10 (1.79)	7.83 (2.46)	7.60 (2.51)	7.04 (1.98)	7.03 (2.11)
Internal consistency	.68 (.68)	.42/.68* (.46/.62)	.75 (.69)	.79 (.78)	.51/.62* (.50/.56)	.66 (.67)
WELL, M (SD)	10.78 (1.76)	10.42 (1.76)	10.73 (1.66)	10.90 (1.75)	10.96 (1.74)	10.51 (1.99)
Internal consistency	.72 (.72)	.66 (.66)	.63 (.61)	.75 (.73)	.75 (.76)	.79 (.79)

Note. SOM = Somatic Symptoms (6 items), ANG = Anger (4 items), SAD = Sadness (4 items), ANX = Anxiety (4 items/3 items: without Item 15, Spearman-Brown adjusted*), WELL = Well-Being (4 items). Internal consistency estimates: Cronbach's α (McDonald’s ω). Instruction: ‘How did you feel in the last week?’ 3-point rating scale: not once/once/many times.

Missing information on age/gender (number of cases): German (2/3), English (1/2), French (0/1), Russian (13/2), Spanish (0/2), Ukrainian (1/1), Total sample (17/9).

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations With Mental Health and Behavioral Problems (Separately for the Language Versions).

				r
				SSKJ Stress-Symptoms and Well-Being
	SDQ	M (SD)	α	SOM	ANG	SAD	ANX	WELL
English (n = 596)	Prosocial Behavior	1.45 (0.41)	.68	−.02	−.13**	−.02	−.01	.23***
	Total Difficulties Score	0.62 (0.31)	.81	.49***	.54***	.53***	.49***	−.27***
French (n = 145)	Prosocial Behavior	1.52 (0.36)	.63	−.02	−.06	.20*	.14	.28**
	Total Difficulties Score	0.59 (0.29)	.77	.36***	.40***	.27**	.26**	−.24**
Russian (n = 373)	Prosocial Behavior	1.45 (0.42)	.70	−.14**	−.20***	−.06	−.04	.36***
	Total Difficulties Score^a	0.56 (0.32)	.80	.46***	.52***	.52***	.49***	−.30***
Spanish (n = 207)	Prosocial Behavior	1.34 (0.50)	.69	−.07	−.08	−.05	.08	.44***
	Total Difficulties Score	0.67 (0.30)	.72	.38***	.36***	.43***	.26***	−.29***
Ukrainian (n = 462)	Prosocial Behavior	1.37 (0.47)	.70	−.04	−.15***	−.08	−.09	.30***
	Total Difficulties Score^b	0.56 (0.32)	.69	.27***	.42***	.37***	.38***	−.33***

Note. SDQ = Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (range: 0–2), SSKJ 3–8 = Stress and Coping Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents, SOM = Somatic Symptoms, ANG = Anger, SAD = Sadness, ANX = Anxiety, WELL = Well-Being. α = Cronbach's α.

^a without items 7, 23, ^bwithout items 2, 7, 10, 11, 23.

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Figure 1. Five-Factor Structure of the SSKJ 3–8 Stress-Symptom and Well-Being Scales (German Version). Note. SOM = Somatic Symptoms, ANG = Anger, SAD = Sadness, ANX = Anxiety, WELL = Well-Being.

Table 3. Model Fit Indices^a of the SSKJ 3–8 Stress-Symptom and Well-Being Scales for the Six Language Versions.

	German	English	French	Russian	Spanish	Ukrainian
N	3,150	684	318	376	207	492
Chi²-value	2116.862	1018.725	480.983	409.684	198.233	242.271
df	199	199	199	199	199	199
CFI	.939	.899	.934	.949	1.000	.977
TLI	.929	.882	.923	.941	1.001	.973
RMSEA (90% CI)	.055 (.052; .057)	.078 (.073; .082)	.067 (.059; .074)	.063 (.056; .070)	.000 (.000; .003)	.038 (.031; .045)
SRMR	.061	.080	.091	.081	.070	.056

Note. ^aRobust results using WLSMV estimation. CFI = Comparative Fit Index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation and 90 % confidence interval, SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

Table 4. Tests^a of Metric Invariance of the SSKJ 3–8 Stress-Symptom and Well-Being Scales Across Different Language Versions.

	Chi^2	df	RMSEA	CFI	ΔCFI	NCI	ΔNCI	Decision
German – English
Configural invariance	2353.012	398	.060	.933		.698
Metric invariance	3079.261	415	.069	.909	.024	.613	.085	Reject
Scalar invariance	3472.443	432	.072	.896	.013	.572	.041	-
German – French
Configural invariance	1180.207	398	.056	.941		.734
Metric invariance	1300.991	415	.058	.933	.008^b	.705	.029	Accept
Scalar invariance	1516.302	432	.063	.918	.015	.652	.053	Reject
German – Russian
Configural invariance	1305.213	398	.056	.940		.730
Metric invariance	1264.872	415	.053	.944	.004^b	.745	.015^b	Accept
Scalar invariance	1696.433	432	.064	.917	.027	.645	.100	Reject
German – Spanish
Configural invariance	612.235	398	.036	.965		.876
Metric invariance	660.507	415	.038	.959	.005^b	.860	.017^b	Accept
Scalar invariance	754.260	432	.043	.947	.013	.820	.040	Reject
German – Ukrainian
Configural invariance	1438.36	398	.052	.952		.767
Metric invariance	1460.78	415	.051	.952	.000^b,c	.766	.001^b,c	Accept
Scalar invariance	1820.695	432	.057	.936	.016	.702	.064	Reject
Full sample – six languages
Configural invariance	4276.925	1194	.054	.944		.745
Metric invariance	5260.595	1279	.060	.927	.017	.683	.062	Reject
Partial metric invariance	4290.702	1274	.052	.945	−.001^b,c	.749	−.004^b,c	(Accept)

Note. ^arobust results using WLSMV estimation; CFI = scaled Comparative Fit Index, NCI = McDonald’s noncentrality index, RMSEA = scaled Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, Δ = scaled change in the parameter.

Sample sizes for the matched data: German (n = 2,043) – English (n = 681), German (n = 951) – French (n = 317), German (n = 1,083) – Russian (n = 361), German (n = 609) – Spanish (n = 203), German (n = 1,470) – Ukrainian (n = 490). Sample sizes for the unmatched data: German (n = 3150), English (n = 684), French (n = 318), Russian (n = 376), Spanish (n = 207), Ukrainian (n = 492). ^binvariance indicated by ΔCFI ≤ .01 and/or ΔNCI ≤ .02 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002); ^cinvariance indicated by ΔCFI ≤ .002 and/or ΔNCI ≤ .0075 (Meade et al., 2008).

Table 5. Tests^a of Metric Invariance of the SSKJ 3–8 Stress-Symptom and Well-Being Scales Between Boys and Girls for the Different Language Versions.

	Chi^2	df	RMSEA	CFI	ΔCFI	NCI	ΔNCI	Decision
German: Boys-Girls
Configural invariance	2245.245	398	.054	.941		.746
Metric invariance	2135.594	415	.051	.945	.004^b	.761	.015^b	Accept
Scalar invariance	2376.01	432	.053	.938	.007^b	.734	.027	Accept
English: Boys-Girls
Configural invariance	1121.25	398	.073	.906		.588
Metric invariance	1081.427	415	.069	.913	.007^b	.613	.025	Accept
Scalar invariance	1152.167	432	.070	.906	.007^b	.589	.024	Accept
French: Boys-Girls^d
Configural invariance	641.640	398	.062	.936		.680
Metric invariance	641.175	415	.059	.941	.005^b	.699	.019^b	Accept
Scalar invariance	675.873	432	.060	.936	.005^b	.680	.019^b	Accept
Russian: Boys-Girls
Configural invariance	662.612	398	.060	.951		.701
Metric invariance	648.227	415	.055	.957	.006^b	.732	.030	Accept
Scalar invariance	694.575	432	.057	.952	.005^b	.703	.028	Accept
Spanish: Boys-Girls^d
Configural invariance	407.811	398	.016	.992		.976
Metric invariance	443.004	415	.026	.977	.015	.934	.043	Reject
Scalar invariance	449.788	432	.020	.985	.008	.957	.024	-
Ukrainian: Boys-Girls
Configural invariance	513.068	398	.034	.981		.889
Metric invariance	512.288	415	.031	.984	.003^b	.905	.016^b	Accept
Scalar invariance	565.476	432	.036	.978	.006^b	.873	.033	Accept

Note. ^arobust results using WLSMV estimation; CFI = scaled Comparative Fit Index, NCI = McDonald’s noncentrality index, RMSEA = scaled Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, Δ = scaled change in the parameter.

^b invariance indicated by ΔCFI ≤ .01 and/or ΔNCI ≤ .02 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002); ^cinvariance indicated by ΔCFI ≤ .002 and/or ΔNCI ≤ .0075 (Meade et al., 2008). ^dEstimation issues emerged for the French sample (one negative variance estimate) and the Spanish sample (two correlation estimates > 1.00). Additional restrictions to admissible values have been set for sensible model estimation.

Table 6. Mean Differences Between Boys and Girls.

	German (n = 3,150)		English (n = 684)		French (n = 318)		Russian (n = 376)		Ukrainian (n = 492)
Subscales	M (SD)	F-value Part Eta^2	M (SD)	F-value Part Eta^2	M (SD)	F-value Part Eta^2	M (SD)	F-value Part Eta^2	M (SD)	F-value Part Eta^2
SOM
Male	9.43 (2.66)	84.09***	10.59 (2.88)	0.04	9.39 (2.51)	15.62***	9.31 (2.41)	13.28**	9.04 (2.41)	6.51
Female	10.31 (2.85)	.026	10.70 (2.95)	.000	10.61 (2.95)	.047	10.31 (2.83)	.036	9.62 (2.49)	.013
ANG
Male	7.35 (2.44)	0.77	7.93 (2.34)	0.11	6.95 (2.26)	9.79*	6.67 (2.44)	0.41	6.98 (2.27)	0.04
Female	7.40 (2.38)	.000	7.84 (2.34)	.000	7.76 (2.34)	.030	6.81 (2.40)	.001	7.00 (2.58)	.000
SAD
Male	6.07 (2.00)	120.36***	6.91 (2.28)	0.99	6.18 (2.20)	18.18***	6.83 (2.29)	12.41**	6.31 (1.97)	5.48
Female	6.91 (2.29)	.037	6.82 (2.24)	.001	7.30 (2.47)	.055	7.68 (2.40)	.034	6.75 (2.10)	.011
ANX
Male	7.42 (2.21)	18.60***	8.17 (1.83)	0.71	7.21 (2.33)	23.19***	7.18 (2.41)	6.71*	7.06 (2.09)	0.07
Female	7.74 (2.18)	.006	7.95 (1.70)	.001	8.49 (2.43)	.069	7.84 (2.53)	.018	7.00 (2.14)	.000
WELL
Male	10.67 (1.86)	11.23**	10.44 (1.72)	0.03	10.58 (1.77)	2.70	10.69 (1.89)	4.57	10.28 (2.15)	7.58*
Female	10.88 (1.64)	.004	10.38 (1.81)	.000	10.89 (1.51)	.009	11.08 (1.64)	.013	10.74 (1.77)	.015

Notes. SOM = Somatic Symptoms (6 items), ANG = Anger (4 items), SAD = Sadness (4 items), ANX = Anxiety (4 items), WELL = Well-Being (4 items). Instruction: ‘How did you feel in the last week?’ 3-point rating scale: not once/once/many times.

Missing information on age/gender (number of cases): German (2/3), English (1/2), French (0/1), Russian (13/2), Ukrainian (1/1).

*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05 (Bonferroni adjusted).

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. doi:https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 568–592. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.