Charles J. Hobson

Stressful Life Events: A Revision and Update of the Social Readjustment Rating Scale

The widely used and cited Social Readjustment Rating Scale developed by Holmes and Rahe (1967) was comprehensively revised and updated. The new instrument, containing 51 major life events, was administered to a national sample of 5000. Respondents were asked to rate the stressfulness of each life event on a 1–100 scale. Completed surveys were returned by 3122 individuals (62.4%). Responses were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA and profile analysis. Major results included: (a) statistically and practically significant differences in mean ratings for the 51 life events; (b) five overlapping themes in the top 20 rated life events—death and dying, healthcare, crime and the criminal justice system, financial/economic issues, and family-related issues; and (c) an amazing level of agreement concerning perceived life event stressfulness, regardless of gender, age, or income level.

National Norms and Life-Event Frequencies for the Revised Social Readjustment Rating Scale

The revised 51-event Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS) was administered to a representative national sample of 5,000 in order to construct and interpret norms for overall scale scores and life-event frequencies. Directions asked for the frequency of each life-event during the previous 12 months. Life-event frequencies for each subject were multiplied by previously determined stressfulness ratings to produce an overall scale score. Norms for overall scale scores and life-event frequencies were calculated. A total of 3,399 completed surveys were returned (68%). The distribution of overall scale scores had a mean of 278, standard deviation of 422, and marked positive skewness of 4.12. Five of the top 10 most frequently occurring life-events were directly related to work. The normative information concerning overall scores on the revised Social Readjustment Rating Scale can be invaluable in understanding and interpreting individual scores, as well as diagnosing or identifying at-risk individuals with high scores who would likely benefit from stress management interventions.