Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32130154›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2020

Assessment of Microstressors in Adults: Questionnaire Development and Ecological Validation of the Mainz Inventory of Microstressors.

Andrea Chmitorz, Karolina Kurth, Lara K Mey, Mario Wenzel, Klaus Lieb, Oliver Tüscher, Thomas Kubiak, Raffael Kalisch

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT05033210 (Prevention of Mental Health Problems Among Persons Without Personal Housing in the Context of the COVID-19 Epidemic), which is not on this map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05033210 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Prevention of Mental Health Problems Among Persons Without Personal Housing in the Context of the COVID-19 Epidemic: a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorANRS, Emerging Infectious DiseasesRan2022 to 2023Enrolled210ConditionsPsychological Distress, Quality of Life, Psychosocial InterventionArmsPsychological First Aid (PFA), Care as Usual (CAU), Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (DWM), Problem Management Plus (PM+)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. A Group Intervention to Promote Resilience in Nursing Professionals: A Randomised Controlled Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Coping-Related Insight as a Mechanism of Resilience Capacity Development in Emerging Adulthood: A Registered Report.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Andrea ChmitorzDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5398-642X
Karolina KurthDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3186-8000
Lara K MeyDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0504-7337
Mario WenzelHealth Psychology, Institute for Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2839-9482
Klaus LiebDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9609-4261
Oliver Tüscher *Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4023-5301
Thomas Kubiak *Health Psychology, Institute for Psychology, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0095-9265
Raffael Kalisch *Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9503-7601

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany existing scales for microstressor assessment do not differentiate between objective (ie, observable) stressor events and stressful cognitions or concerns. They often mix items assessing objective stressor events with items measuring other aspects of stress, such as perceived stressor severity, the evoked stress reaction, or further consequences on health, which may result in spurious associations in studies that include other questionnaires that measure such constructs. Most scales were developed several decades ago; therefore, modern life stressors may not be represented. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) allows for sampling of current behaviors and experiences in real time and in the natural habitat, thereby maximizing the generalization of the findings to real-life situations (ie, ecological validity) and minimizing recall bias. However, it has not been used for the validation of microstressor questionnaires so far.

objectiveThe aim is to develop a questionnaire that (1) allows for retrospective assessment of microstressors over one week, (2) focuses on objective (ie, observable) microstressors, (3) includes stressors of modern life, and (4) separates stressor occurrence from perceived stressor severity.

methodsCross-sectional (N=108) and longitudinal studies (N=10 and N=70) were conducted to evaluate the Mainz Inventory of Microstressors (MIMIS). In the longitudinal studies, EMA was used to compare stressor data, which was collected five times per day for 7 or 30 days with retrospective reports (end-of-day, end-of-week). Pearson correlations and multilevel modeling were used in the analyses.

resultsHigh correlations were found between end-of-week, end-of-day, and EMA data for microstressor occurrence (counts) (r≥.69 for comparisons per week, r≥.83 for cumulated data) and for mean perceived microstressor severity (r≥.74 for comparisons per week, r≥.85 for cumulated data). The end-of-week questionnaire predicted the EMA assessments sufficiently (counts: beta=.03, 95% CI .02-.03, P<.001; severity: beta=.73, 95% CI .59-.88, P<.001) and the association did not change significantly over four subsequent weeks.

conclusionsOur results provide evidence for the ecological validity of the MIMIS questionnaire.

Indexed as

daily hasslesecological momentary assessmentmicrostressorvalidation

Identifiers

PMID32130154
PMCPMC7063526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.