The Chinese Gender Role Stress scales. Factor structure and predictive validity.
A slim three-factor Chinese Gender Role Stress scale still predicts anxiety and social trouble, saving clinicians time.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team trimmed the long Chinese Gender Role Stress scale. They kept only the items that hung together best.
Adults in Hong Kong filled out the new short form. The researchers checked if scores still lined up with anxiety and social problems.
What they found
Three clean factors stayed standing. The short scale still warned who felt anxious or socially stuck.
In plain words: the skinny version works like the fat one, so you can save time.
How this fits with other research
Shearn et al. (1997) did the same trick with the Lifestress Inventory. They also cut a stress tool to three factors for adults, but their group had mild intellectual disability.
Ho et al. (2013) and Baker et al. (2005) show the same recipe works across ages. They both tightened Western scales for Chinese users—Ting for preschool readiness, L for autism traits.
No clash here. Each study trims a different tool for a different people group, yet all land on reliable short forms.
Why it matters
If you test stress, gender roles, or mood in Chinese adults, you can now grab a 3-factor scale instead of the 5-factor monster. Less fatigue, same signal. Try it in intake packets or research surveys next week.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Swap in the 3-factor Chinese GRS on your next adult intake form and cut survey time in half.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The present study aimed at examining the factor structure and predictive validity of the translated Masculine Gender Role Stress (MGRS) and Feminine Gender Role Stress (FGRS) scales in samples of Chinese college students and professionals (N = 482). Consistent with previous research, our results supported the theoretical assumption that stressors associated with gender role behaviors were sex-specific, and Chinese men generally scored higher on the MGRS factors but lower on the FGRS factors than Chinese women. Compared to professionals, students had higher scores on both Gender Role Stress (GRS) scales. The MGRS factors predicted somatic complaint and anxiety, whereas the FGRS factors predicted social dysfunction. Results of confirmatory factor analyses rejected a five-factor structure for the two Chinese GRS scales. Based on exploratory factor analyses, a more parsimonious three-factor solution was identified for each GRS scale. The revised three-factor GRS scales compared favorably with the original five-factor GRS scales in internal consistency, interfactor correlations, and prediction of psychological distress. The major discrepancy between the original and revised factor structure was related to the prediction of depressogenic symptoms. In sum, our suggested that the two GRS constructs were useful in the Chinese context, and the revised three-factor structure provided a viable alternative to the original five-factor structure.
Behavior modification, 1996 · doi:10.1177/01454455960203005