Assessment & Research

Validation of the Lifestress Inventory for people with a mild intellectual disability.

Fogarty et al. (1997) · Research in developmental disabilities 1997
★ The Verdict

The Lifestress Inventory gives BCBAs a validated three-factor stress measure created for adults with mild intellectual disability.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who assess or support adults with mild ID in residential, vocational, or day-program settings.
✗ Skip if Practitioners working only with children or severe-profound ID.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Researchers built a new stress survey for adults with mild intellectual disability. They called it the Lifestress Inventory. The team ran two kinds of math checks to see if the questions hung together. They wanted to know if stress really splits into three clear parts for this group.

Adults with mild ID answered the draft items. Staff or family helped when needed. The study used confirmatory and Rasch analyses to test the shape of the data.

02

What they found

The numbers lined up with a neat three-factor model. The three factors stayed stable across the sample. That means the inventory gives a clean picture of stress, not just noise.

03

How this fits with other research

van Herwaarden et al. (2022) picked up the same baton 25 years later. They built a well-being scale, not a stress scale, but they also found three factors that held firm in adults with mild ID. Their work extends the 1997 effort into positive psychology.

McGeown et al. (2013) asked a similar math question about the WAIS-IV. They showed the four-factor IQ structure stays intact for adults with ID. Shearn et al. (1997) did the same job for stress, proving the tool keeps its shape.

Schaaf et al. (2015) tried to validate a psychopathology tool but never shared the outcome numbers. Shearn et al. (1997) went further by actually reporting positive findings, so practitioners know the Lifestress Inventory works.

04

Why it matters

You now have a quick, three-part stress screen made for adults with mild ID. Use it during intake, annual reviews, or when behavior spikes. The factors guide you to the right follow-up: teach coping skills, adjust the environment, or refer for mental-health care. No need to adapt generic stress tools that were never tested with this population.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Add the 3-factor Lifestress Inventory to your intake packet and score it with staff help.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
other
Sample size
221
Population
intellectual disability
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

The Subjective Stress Scale (SSS; Bramston & Bostock, 1994) was developed to measure stress in people with a mild intellectual disability. In previous research, the SSS was found to measure two broad dimensions of stress (a) a General Worry factor and (b) a factor that tapped concerns about Negative Interpersonal Relations (Bramston & Fogarty, 1995). The present study sought to continue this line of research by introducing a slightly modified form of the SSS, to be known as the Lifestress Inventory (LI) and examining the psychometric properties of the scale when administered to a new sample of 221 people with mild intellectual disabilities. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that three underlying factors corresponding to General Worry, Negative Interpersonal Relations, and Coping were sufficient to account for the correlations among the items in the LI. Rasch analysis indicated some improvements to the scoring format for the LI and also showed that the most easily experienced stressors were associated with the Negative Interpersonal Relations dimension. The refinements introduced by the LI and the further demonstration that some of the broad stress dimensions identified in the general population can also be found in people with an intellectual disability represent important milestones for researchers interested in exploring reactions to stress among this population.

Research in developmental disabilities, 1997 · doi:10.1016/s0891-4222(97)00021-8