Yong Wah Goh

Using the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21) across cultures

The DASS-21 is a well-established instrument for measuring depression, anxiety, and stress with good reliability and validity reported from Hispanic American, British, and Australian adults. However, the lack of appropriate validation among Asian populations continues to pose concerns over the use of DASS-21 in Asian samples. Cultural variation may influence the individuals experience and emotional expression. Thus, when researchers and practitioners employ Western-based assessments with Asian populations by directly translating them without an appropriate validation, the process can be challenging. We conducted a series of rigorous statistical tests and minimized any potential confounds from the demographic information. Following factor analyses, we performed multigroup analysis across six nations to demonstrate consistency of our findings. The advantages of this revised DASS-18 stress scale are twofold. First, it possesses fewer items, which results in a cleaner factorial structure. Second, it has a smaller interfactor correlation. With these justifications, the revised DASS-18 stress scale is potentially more suitable for Asian populations. Nonetheless, given limitations, findings should be considered preliminary.

Are Country and Culture Values Interchangeable?: A Case Example Using Occupational Stress and Coping.

Cross cultural research in occupational stress and coping has produced a wealth of knowledge. Although advances have been made, there are still problems to be solved. One of these problems is the confusion generated in the literature by researchers claiming that nation or country represents cultural values, and the use of the two terms interchangeably. It remains unclear whether this practice is correct. The present article reported on this by using 511 full-time employees from Australia, Singapore and Sri Lanka to study occupational stress and coping. Results revealed that cultural value paradigms (i.e. Individualism–Collectivism) were distributed across the three nations such that over 60% of participants were either high or low in both I–C paradigms. The findings also indicated that the relationship between cultural value paradigm and country impacted on stress and coping differently. The study shows that significant differences exist within countries as well as between countries, such that any attempt to equate ‘culture’ with ‘country’ becomes problematic. Therefore these findings established that country or nation is not the same as culture values and cannot be used interchangeably.