RehabMeasures
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Stress Appraisal Measure

Stress Appraisal Measure

Last Updated

Purpose

The Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM) is a self-report instrument intended to measure an individual’s appraisal of a specific stressful situation identified by the examiner. The SAM includes measures of primary stress appraisal, secondary stress appraisal (i.e., coping resources), and overall perceived stressfulness (Peacock, 1990).

Acronym SAM

Area of Assessment

Stress & Coping

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Computer

Cost

Free

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Stroke Recovery

Populations

Non-Specific Patient Population

Key Descriptions

  • The Stress Appraisal Measure is a self-report instrument comprised of 28-items which are administered through the use of a computer.
  • Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale regarding how the individual feels about a specific stressful situation; responses range from 1 “Not at all” to 5 “Extremely”.
  • The SAM is made up of seven total subscales intended to measure an individual’s primary appraisal of future events. The three primary subscales include: (1) Threat (i.e., the potential for harm/loss), (2) Challenge (i.e., the anticipation of growth gained from the experience), and (3) Centrality (i.e., the perceived significance of the event on personal well-being).
  • The SAM also includes three secondary appraisal subscales that measure the individual’s appraisal of available coping resources: (4) Controllable-by-self, (5) Controllable-by-others, and (6) uncontrollable-by-anyone.
  • Finally, the SAM includes a general perceived (7) “Stressfulness” subscale.
  • Each of the seven subscales (e.g., Threat, Challenge, Centrality, Controllable-by-self, Controllable-by-others, Uncontrollable-by-anyone, and Stressfulness) is made up of 4 items. The subscale scores are calculated by summing the appropriate subscale items, and then dividing the total subscale score by 4 to create an average subscale score.

Number of Items

28

Equipment Required

  • Computer, keyboard, and mouse
  • Working Internet Connection

Time to Administer

15 minutes

10-15 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initial review completed by Jordan Wheeler and Samantha DeDios-Stern at the Illinois Institute of Technology (2015). Update and revision completed by Kristian Nitsch, MS (3/4/2015).

ICF Domain

Environment

Measurement Domain

Emotion

Considerations

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

 

Non-Specific Patient Population

back to Populations

Normative Data

Athletes (Nicholls, Polman, & Levy, 2012)

** (n= 556 athletes who competed at the international, national, county, club/university, or beginner level Mean Age= 22.28, SD= 5.72)

  • Threat: Mean= 7.83, SD= 2.62
  • Challenge: Mean= 14.01, SD= 2.98
  • Centrality: Mean= 10.61, SD= 3.89
  • Controllable-by-self: Mean= 15.9, SD= 2.69
  • Controllable-by-others : Mean= 13.24, SD= 3.76
  • Uncontrollable: Mean= 6.54, SD= 2.55
  • Stressfulness: Mean= 10.02, SD= 3.07

 

Undergraduate Students (Peacock & Wong, 1990)

** (n=100 undergraduate students enrolled in a second-year psychological course. The SAM was administered four weeks prior to final examinations)

  • Threat: Mean= 2.6, SD= 0.8
  • Challenge: Mean= 3.0, SD= 0.9
  • Centrality: Mean= 3.6, SD= 0.9
  • Controllable-by-self: Mean= 3.9, SD= 0.7
  • Controllable-by-others : Mean= 3.7, SD= 0.8
  • Uncontrollable: Mean= 1.6, SD= 0.6
  • Stressfulness: Mean= 3.4, SD= 0.9

** (n= 73 undergraduate students who rated the prospect of not being able to obtain summer employment)

  • Threat: Mean= 2.6, SD= 0.8
  • Challenge: Mean= 3.5, SD= 0.7
  • Centrality: Mean= 3.7, SD= 0.7
  • Controllable-by-self: Mean= 3.8, SD= 0.8
  • Controllable-by-others : Mean= 3.4, SD= 0.7
  • Uncontrollable: Mean= 2.2, SD= 0.9
  • Stressfulness: Mean= 3.0, SD= 0.7

** (n= 78 undergraduate students who rated the prospect of contracting the virus responsible for AIDS)

  • Threat: Mean= 3.2, SD= 1.0
  • Challenge: Mean= 2.5, SD= 1.0
  • Centrality: Mean= 3.5, SD= 1.2
  • Controllable-by-self: Mean= 3.1, SD= 1.1
  • Controllable-by-others : Mean= 3.3, SD= 1.1
  • Uncontrollable: Mean= 2.8, SD= 1.1
  • Stressfulness: Mean= 3.0, SD= 1.0

** (n= 144 undergraduate students enrolled in a psychological course. The SAM was administered three weeks prior to final examinations)

  • Threat: Mean= 2.3, SD= 0.8
  • Challenge: Mean= 3.0, SD= 0.8
  • Centrality: Mean= 3.7, SD= 0.8
  • Controllable-by-self: Mean= 4.0, SD= 0.7
  • Controllable-by-others : Mean= 3.4, SD= 1.0
  • Uncontrollable: Mean= 1.6, SD= 0.6
  • Stressfulness: Mean= 3.3, SD= 0.9

 

Spouses of First-time Stroke Survivors

(Rochette, Bravo, Desrosiers, St-Cyr/Tribble, & Bourget, 2007)

** (n= 47 spouses of individuals who had a stroke; Mean Age= 69.2, SD= 11.2)

Time One (Stroke Onset):

  • Threat: Mean= 9.2, SD= 3.7
  • Challenge: Mean= 11.7, SD= 3.8
  • Centrality: Mean= 10.1, SD= 4.4
  • Controllable-by-self: Mean= 16.0, SD= 3.6
  • Controllable-by-others : Mean= 12.1, SD= 4.8
  • Uncontrollable: Mean= 6.3, SD= 2.6
  • Stressfulness: Mean= 10.1, SD= 4.3

Time Two (Three Months Post Stroke):

  • Threat: Mean= 8.3, SD= 3.9
  • Challenge: Mean= 10.7, SD= 3.9
  • Centrality: Mean= 10.3, SD= 5.3
  • Controllable-by-self: Mean= 16.9, SD= 2.8
  • Controllable-by-others : Mean= 12.1, SD= 4.3
  • Uncontrollable: Mean= 7.1, SD= 3.5
  • Stressfulness: Mean= 8.7, SD= 4.9

Time Three (Six Months Post Stroke):

  • Threat: Mean= 7.2, SD= 3.3
  • Challenge: Mean= 10.0, SD= 3.8
  • Centrality: Mean= 10.0, SD= 5.6
  • Controllable-by-self: Mean= 16.4, SD= 2.6
  • Controllable-by-others : Mean= 12.6, SD= 4.6
  • Uncontrollable: Mean= 7.7, SD= 3.9
  • Stressfulness: Mean= 7.8, SD= 4.1

Internal Consistency

Undergraduate Students- Anticipatory Examination Stress (Peacock & Wong, 1990)

* (n= 100, 2nd year undergraduate psychology students, 4 weeks prior to final exam)

  • Threat: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.75)
  • Challenge: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.74)
  • Centrality: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.90)
  • Controllable-by-self: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.87)
  • Controllable-by-others: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.84)
  • Uncontrollable: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.51)
  • Stressfulness: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.81)

 

Undergraduate students- Anticipatory Stress of Contracting AIDS Virus vs. Becoming Unemployed: (Peacock & Wong, 1990)

*(n = 154; AIDS group n= 81, Unemployment Group n= 73; 2nd year undergraduate psychology students)

  • Threat: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.73)
  • Challenge: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.79)
  • Centrality: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.85)
  • Controllable-by-self: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.86)
  • Controllable-by-others: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.84)
  • Uncontrollable: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.82)
  • Stressfulness: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.75)

 

Undergraduate Students- Anticipatory Examination Stress: (Peacock and Wong, 1990)

*(n = 144 introductory psychology students, 3 weeks prior to exam)

  • Threat: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.65)
  • Challenge: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.66)
  • Centrality: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.84)
  • Controllable-by-self: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.84)
  • Controllable-by-others: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.85)
  • Uncontrollable: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.57)
  • Stressfulness: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.79)

 

Undergraduate students (Turkish version)- Most Stressful State in Past 4 Weeks (Durak, & Senol-Durak, 2013)

*(n= 461 undergraduates, Mean Age = 20.41, SD = 1.78).

  • Threat: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.88)
  • Challenge: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.62)
  • Controllable-by-self: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.77)
  • Controllable-by-others: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.88)
  • Uncontrollable: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.65)

 

University Students and Adults (Turkish version)- Most Stressful State in Past 4 Weeks (Durak, & Senol-Durak, 2013)

*(n= 751 undergraduates, Mean Age= 20.80, SD= 1.69)

  • Threat: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.81)
  • Challenge: (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.70)
  • Controllable-by-self: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.86)
  • Controllable-by-others: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.81)
  • Uncontrollable: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.74)

*(n= 548 adults, Mean Age= 34.73, SD= 10.75)

  • Threat: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.83)
  • Challenge: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.68)
  • Controllable-by-self: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.84)
  • Controllable-by-others: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.80)
  • Uncontrollable: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.74)

 

Athletes- Appraisal of Competing (Nicholls, Polman, & Levy, 2012)

*(n= 557 athletes, Mean Age= 22.28, SD= 5.72)

  • Threat: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.77)
  • Challenge: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.73)
  • Controllable-by-self: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.80)
  • Controllable-by-others: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.88)
  • Uncontrollable: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.64)
  • Stressfulness: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= 0.68)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Predictive Validity

Stroke Patient Spouses- Caregiving Stress (French version) (Rochette, Bravo, Desrosiers, St-Cyr/Tribble, & Bourget, 2007)

** (n= 47, spouses of first stroke individuals, Mean Age= 69.2, SD= 11.2)

  • Threat Subscale (baseline) and depressive symptoms (as measured by BDI) 6 months later: Adequate (r= 0.38 p= 0.009)

 

  • Centrality subscale (baseline) and depressive symptoms (as measured by BDI) 6 months later: Adequate (r= 0.39 p= 0.008)

 

  • Controlled-by-self subscale (baseline) and depressive symptoms (as measured by BDI) 6 months later: Adequate (r= -0.34 p= 0.02)

 

  • Uncontrollable subscale (baseline) and depressive symptoms (as measured by BDI) 6 months later: Adequate (r= 0.41 p= 0.004)

 

  • Stressfulness subscale (baseline) and depressive symptoms (as measured by BDI) 6 months later: Adequate r = 0.45 p = 0.001)

 

Stroke Patients- Stroke related stress (French version) (Rochette, Bravo, Desrosiers, St-Cyr/Tribble, & Bourget, 2007)

** (n= 88, first stroke individuals, Mean Age= 71.8, SD= 10.8)

  • Poor predictive validity of the Challenge subscale (baseline) with participation (as measured by LIFE-H) 6 months later, (r= 0.26, p= 0.01)

 

  • Adequate predictive validity of the Centrality subscale (baseline) with participation (as measured by LIFE-H) 6 months later, (r= -0.32, p= 0.003)

 

  • Adequate predictive validity of the Controlled-by-self subscale (baseline) with participation (as measured by LIFE-H) 6 months later, (r= 0.33, p= 0.002)

 

  • Poor predictive validity of the Uncontrollable subscale (baseline) with participation (as measured by LIFE-H) 6 months later, (r= -0.22, p = 0.04)

 

  • Adequate predictive validity of the Stressfulness subscale (baseline) with participation (as measured by LIFE-H) 6 months later, (r= -0.33, p= 0.002)

 

  • Poor predictive validity of the Threat subscale (baseline) with depressive symptoms (as measured by BDI) 6 months later, (r= 0.26, p= 0.02)

 

 

  • Poor predictive validity of the Challenge subscale (baseline) with depressive symptoms (as measured by BDI) 6 months later, (r= -0.27, p= 0.01)

 

  • Adequate predictive validity of the Centrality subscale (baseline) with depressive symptoms (as measured by BDI) 6 months later, (r= 0.32, p= 0.003)

 

  • Adequate predictive validity of the Controlled-by-self subscale (baseline) with depressive symptoms (as measured by BDI) 6 months later, (r= -0.40, p= <0.001)

 

  • Poor predictive validity of the Controlled-by-others subscale (baseline) with depressive symptoms (as measured by BDI) 6 months later, (r= -0.24, p= 0.03)

 

  • Poor predictive validity of the Uncontrollable subscale (baseline) with depressive symptoms (as measured by BDI) 6 months later, (r= 0.25, p= 0.02)

 

  • Poor predictive validity of the Stressfulness subscale (baseline) with depressive symptoms (as measured by BDI) 6 months later, (r = 0.29, p= 0.006)

 

Concurrent Validity:

Undergraduate Students – Anticipatory Examination Stress: (Peacock and Wong, 1990)

** (n= 144 introductory psychology students, 3 weeks prior to exam)

  • Adequate concurrent validity of the Threat subscale with psychological symptomatology (unknown measure), (r= 0.36, p< .001)

 

  • Adequate concurrent validity of the Centrality subscale with psychological symptomatology (unknown measure), (r= 0.33, p< .001)

 

  • Poor concurrent validity of the Uncontrollable subscale with psychological symptomatology (unknown measure), (r= 0.24, p< .01)

 

  • Adequate concurrent validity of the Stressfulness subscale with psychological symptomatology (unknown measure), (r= 0.38, p< .001)

 

  • Adequate concurrent validity of the Threat subscale with dysphoric mood (unknown measure), (r= 0.55, p< .001)

 

  • Adequate concurrent validity of the Centrality subscale with dysphoric mood (unknown measure), (r= 0.40, p,< .001)

 

  • Adequate concurrent validity of the Stressfulness subscale with dysphoric mood (unknown measure), (r= 0.58, p< .001)

 

University Students & Adults (Turkish Version)- Most Stressful State in Past 4 Weeks (Durak, & Senol-Durak, 2013)

** (n = 751 undergraduates and n= 548 adults, undergraduates Mean Age= 20.80, SD = 1.69; adult Mean Age= 34.73, SD= 10.75)

  • Adequate concurrent validity of the Threat subscale with state anxiety (as measured by the STAI-State) (r= 0.398, p< .001)

 

  • Poor concurrent validity of the Uncontrollable subscale with state anxiety (as measured by the STAI-State) (r= 0.239, p< .001)

 

  • Poor concurrent validity of the Challenge subscale with social desirability (as measured by the MCSDS) (r= 0.08, p< .05)

 

  • Poor concurrent validity of the Controllable-by-self subscale with social desirability (as measured by the MCSDS) (r= 0.160, p< .001)

Construct Validity

Discriminant Validity:

 

Undergraduate students- Anticipatory examination stress: (Peacock and Wong, 1990; n = 144 introductory psychology students, 3 weeks prior to exam)

  • Poor discriminant validity of the Challenge subscale with dysphoric mood (unknown measure), r = -0.19, p < .05
  • Poor discriminant validity of the Controllable-by-self subscale with dysphoric mood (unknown measure), r = -0.26, p < .01
  • Poor discriminant validity of the Controllable-by-others subscale with dysphoric mood (unknown measure), r = -0.29, p < .001
  • Adequate discriminant validity of the Uncontrollable subscale with dysphoric mood (unknown measure), r = -0.37, p < .001
  • Poor discriminant validity of the Challenge subscale with locus of control (unknown measure), r = -0.17, p < .05
  • Poor discriminant validity of the Controllable-by-others subscale with locus of control (unknown measure), r = -0.21, p < .05

 

University students and Adults (Turkish version)- most stressful state in past 4 weeks (Durak, & Senol-Durak, 2013; n = 751 undergraduates and n = 548 adults, undergraduates mean age = 20.80 (SD = 1.69), adult mean age = 34.73 (SD = 10.75)).

  • Poor discriminant validity of the Challenge subscale with state anxiety (as measured by the STAI-State), r = -0.085, p < .05
  • Poor discriminant validity of the Controllable-by-self subscale with state anxiety (as measured by the STAI-State), r = -0.222, p < .001
  • Poor discriminant validity of the Controllable-by-others subscale with state anxiety (as measured by the STAI-State), r = -0.189, p < .001
  • Poor discriminant validity of the Threat subscale with social desirability (as measured by the MCSDS), r = -0.152, p < .001
  • Poor discriminant validity of the Uncontrollable subscale with social desirability (as measured by the MCSDS), r = -0.144, p < .001

Content Validity

Undergraduate students- Anticipatory examination stress: (Peacock and Wong, 1990; n = 100, 2nd year undergraduate psychology students, 4 weeks prior to final exam)

  • 6 appraisal dimensions were moderately inter-correlated (mean r = 0.22), demonstrating that the subscales measure related by independent appraisal dimensions.

 

Undergraduate students- Anticipatory stress of contracting AIDS Virus vs. becoming unemployment: (Peacock and Wong, 1990; n = 154 (AIDS group n = 81, unemployment group n = 73), 2nd year undergraduate psychology students)

  • Principal factors analysis using varimax rotation supported 3 control dimensions (controllable-by-self, controllable-by-others, and uncontrollable).

 

Undergraduate students- Anticipatory examination stress: (Peacock and Wong, 1990; n = 144 introductory psychology students, 3 weeks prior to exam)

  • Principal factors analysis using varimax rotation supported the 6-factor solution corresponding to the 6 appraisal subscales.

Bibliography

Durak, M., & Senol-Durak, E. (2013). The development and psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Stress Appraisal Measure. European Journal Of Psychological Assessment, 29(1), 64-71.

Nicholls, A. R., Polman, R. C. J., & Levy, A. R. (2012). A path analysis of stress appraisals, emotions, coping, and performance satisfaction among athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 263-270.

Peacock, E. J., & Wong, P. T. (1990). The Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM): A multidimensional approach to cognitive appraisal. Stress Medicine, 6(3), 227-236.

Rochette, A., Bravo, G., Desrosiers, J., St-Cyr/Tribble, D., & Bourget, A. (2007). Adaptation process, participation and depression over six months in first-stroke individuals and spouses. Clinical Rehabilitation, 21(6), 554-562.

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Nov 5, 2024

Leicester Cough Questionna...

read more

updated Oct 15, 2024

Buss-Durkee Hostility Inve...

read more

updated Jul 31, 2024

PROMIS – Ability to Partic...

read more