International Medical Journal Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 99 - 105 , June 2011
99
HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT
The Validity and Reliability of Secondary School Stressor Questionnaire (3SQ) in Identifying Stressor among Adolescents in Secondary School Muhamad Saiful Bahri Yusoff ABSTRACT Objective: To determine the construct validity and the internal consistency of the Secondary School Stressor Questionnaire (3SQ) among adolescents in secondary school hence in the future it could be used as a valid and reliable instrument to identify their stressors. Methodology: The 3SQ was developed based on literature review. The face validity of the questionnaire was established through discussion with 30 medical students whereas content validity was established through discussion with experts from related field. It was administered to a total of 100 adolescents in a secondary school. Data was analysed using Statistical Package Social Sciences (SPSS) version 12. Factor analysis was applied to test construct validity whereas reliability analysis (Cronbach’s alpha and item total correlation) was applied to test internal consistency of the 3SQ. Result: A total of 90 (90%) students participated in this study. The total Cronbach’s alpha value of the 3SQ was 0.90. The items were loaded into the six pre-determined hypothetical groups. Conclusion: This study showed that the 3SQ had a good psychometric value. It is a valid and reliable instrument that can be used in the future to identify stressors among secondary school adolescents.
KEY WORDS validity, reliability, adolescent, stressors, factor analysis
INTRODUTION
Stress in adolescents
Secondary school education environment has always been regarded as a stressful environment to adolescents. The associated negative consequences of chronic exposure to excessive stress to the mental, emotional and physical health of students have been described in many studies1-11). Some studies have described and revealed the sources of stress among adolescents in secondary school11-13), however, they were using difference questionnaire to identify their stressors. Therefore a valid and reliable instrument is needed to identify sources of stress among the students hence comparison between studies can be made in the future. This article described the validity and reliability of a newly developed questionnaire, known as Secondary School Stressor Questionnaire (3SQ), in identifying sources of stress among adolescents in secondary school.
Students in Malaysian secondary schools generally at age of 13 to 17 year-old and they are adolescents. The adolescent period was associated with dramatic changes and life challenges. Adolescence is viewed as the period of transitions and challenges encountered through a series of passages from immaturity into maturity of the developing adolescent 13). Therefore, many of them deal with various problems related to this transitional period such poor selfesteem, pressure to perform academically, conflict with parent, peers and teachers12-14). All of these challenges lead to unfriendly environment to the students. Stress is defined as the body’s nonspecific response or reaction to demands made on it, or to disturbing events in the environment15,16). It is not just a stimulus or a response but it is a process by which we perceive and cope with environmental threats and challenges17). Personal and environmental events that cause stress are known as stressors18).
Received on June 17, 2010 and accepted on September 6, 2010 Medical Education Department, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia Correspondence to: Muhamad Saiful Bahri Yusoff (e-mail:
[email protected])
C 2011 Japan International Cultural Exchange Foundation
100
Muhamad Saiful B. Y.
In short, stress can be simply defined as emotional disturbances or changes caused by stressors. Some stress in school training is needed for learning 19). Stress which can promote and facilitate learning is called ‘good stress’ and stress which can inhibit and suppress learning is called ‘bad stress’19). The same stressors may be perceived differently by different students, depending on their cultural background, personality traits, experience and coping skills. One model that is useful in understanding stress among students is the person-environment model. This model argued that stress consists of three processes. Primary appraisal, the first process, is the process of perceiving a threat or challenge to oneself. Secondary appraisal is the process of bringing to mind a potential response to the threat or challenge. Coping, the last process is the process of executing that response. These processes are not static but constantly change as a result of the continual interplay between the person and the environment 18). According to one elaboration of this model, stressful events are appraised by an individual as ‘challenging’ or ‘threatening’. When students appraise their education as a challenge, stress can bring them a sense of competence and an increased capacity to learn. When education is seen as a threat, however, stress can elicit feelings of helplessness and a foreboding sense of loss. A critical issue concerning stress among students is its effect on learning. Individuals under low stress learn least and that those under moderate stress learn most. However, excessive stress is harmful to students’ performance and achievement. Mechanisms that explain why students perform badly under stress include ‘hypervigilance’ (excessive alertness to a stressful situation resulting in panic - for example over studying for an exam) and ‘premature closure’ (quickly choosing a solution to end a stressful situation - for example, rushing through an exam)20). WHO has estimated that about 20% of adolescents having mental health problems due to various reasons related to stress 21). Studies have revealed an association of bad stress level with lowered self-esteem 19,22) , anxiety and depression 23,24) , difficulties in solving interpersonal conflicts25), sleeping disorders26), increased alcohol and drug consumption 27-29), cynicism, decreased attention, reduced concentration and academic dishonesty7). Bad stress was also associated with inhibition of students’ academic achievement and personal growth development19). Therefore many researchers have stated the importance of early detection and diagnosis as well as effective psychological services, which can prevent possible future illnesses among students1,9,3).
Academic related stressors (ARS) Academic related stressor is referred to any scholastic, university, college, school, educational or student events that cause stress on students. These include examination systems, assessment methods, grading methods, academic schedule, students activities related to academic events such as getting poor mark in examination, large amount of content to be studied, having difficulty to understand content, lack of time to do revision, learning context full of competition, and having difficulty to answer question given by teachers12-14,26,34). Interpersonal related stressors (InterRS) Interpersonal stressor generally related to relationship between individuals such as verbal, physical and emotional abuse caused by other persons, and conflict with personnel, teachers, colleagues, and staff1,8,12-14,30,31). Intrapersonal related stressors (IntraRS) Intrapersonal stressor generally related to relationship of one own self such as low self-esteem, high self-expectation to do well in study, feeling of incompetence and selfconflict12-14,30,31). Learning and Teaching related stressors (LTRS) Learning and teaching related stressor is referred to any events related to teaching or learning that cause stress on students. Dissatisfaction with the quality of education, the methods of teaching and learning, the supervision and feedback systems, and recognition to work done as well as uncertainty of what is expected from the students were also perceived as stressors1,3,8,12-14,31,34). Teacher related stressors (TRS) Teacher related stressor is referred to the quality and competency of teachers in supervising and delivering their input to the students. Dissatisfaction with quality of teachers’ supervision skills, teaching skills, lack of reading materials given and inappropriate assignment given to the students were also perceived as stressors1,12-14,31,).
Stressors of adolescents A stressor is defined as a personal or environmental event that causes stress18). Stressors of adolescents in secondary school generally were grouped into six categories; academic related stressors (ARS), intrapersonal related stressor (IntraRS), interpersonal related stressors (InterRS), learning and teaching related stressors (LTRS), teacher related stressors (TRS), and group social related stressors (GSRS). Studies have revealed that the stressors affecting secondary school students’ wellbeing seems to be related to the school training 12-14) . Curriculum differences in the schools may not necessarily cause differences in the overall pattern of stressors (i.e. most of the top stressors are related to academic matters), although frequency (rank) of some stressors may be significantly different30,31).
Group Social related stressors (GSRS) Group-Social related stressor is referred to any form of group events and interactions, community and societal relationships that cause stress on students. It is generally related participation in group discussion, group presentation, others expectation to do well, leisure time with family and friend, working with publics, privacy time for own-self, working interruption by others1,9,12-14,33,34).
101
METHODOLOGY
Collection of data
Development of the Secondary School Stressor Questionnaire (3SQ)
The investigator requested the participants to fill in the 3SQ. Data was collected by guided self-administered during face-to-face session. The investigator obtained permission and clearance from the School of Medical Sciences and Human Ethical Committee of Universiti Sains Malaysia.
The 3SQ was developed originally in Malay (it is also known as Soalselidik Stresor Sekolah Menengah (SSSM)). The items were framed through review of literature on the subject and also by discussion with expert in the field. These sources have provided the blueprint for the development of 3SQ. Before constructing the tools, theoretical constructs were formed consisting of the hypothetical groups. In the 3SQ, there were six hypothetical groups; academic related stressors (ARS), intrapersonal related stressor (IntraRS), interpersonal related stressors (InterRS), learning and teaching related stressors (LTRS), teacher related stressors (TRS), and group social related stressors (GSRS). An item conveying the idea most clearly was retained, and the language of item was made simple and suitable to express the concept implied. This process of scrutiny and evaluation yielded 45 statements for the 3SQ. The theoretical constructs of the 3SQ were shown in the table 1. Expert evaluation of the items In order to establish the content validity of the 3SQ, the items were subjected to Jury technique. The experts were drawn from the field of Medical Education, Community Medicine and Psychiatry. The item of 3SQ were rated under 5 categories of responses; tidak menyebabkan sebarang tekanan (causing no stress at all), menyebabkan tekanan yang sedikit (causing mild stress), menyebabkan tekanan yang sederhana (causing moderate stress), menyebabkan tekanan yang tinggi (causing high stress), and menyebabkan tekanan yang sangat tinggi (causing severe stress) to indicate intensity of stress caused by the items. Preliminary try-out The items were arranged as shown in table 1, and administered to a sample of 30 medical students to check their applicability and face validity during face-to-face session. The students were encouraged to express their doubts freely. Necessary modifications were made with the experience gained through this preliminary try-out. One item was deleted because of the item was poorly understood by the students. Thus, only 44 items were remained for the validation study. Validation study The preliminary form used for this study contained 44 items. A total of 100 adolescents were selected as study participants. Proper instructions were given before the administration of the scale. The subjects were asked to respond to all the statements and no time limit was imposed. During the time of administration the investigator gave proper assistance and directions whenever and wherever necessary.
Statistical analysis Reliability analysis Reliability analysis was done to determine the internal consistency of the items measured by using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. For an estimation of reliability, statistical reliability of individual items was done. Items with corrected-item total correlation value more than 0.3 were selected to remain in the 3SQ. Items with Cronbach’s alpha value if item-deleted could determine which question was highly contributed to the alpha value. If the Cronbach’s alpha value for those items-deleted were decreased, it indicated that the items were highly contributed to alpha value. In contrast, if the Cronbach’s alpha value for those itemsdeleted were increased, it indicated that the items poorly contributed to alpha value. The items of 3SQ were considered to represent a measure of high internal consistency if the Cronbach’s alpha value was more than 0.735). Factor Analysis Factor Analysis was done to determine the construct validity of the 3SQ. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was applied to measure the sampling adequacy. The sample is considered adequate if i) KMO value more than 0.5 and ii) Bartlett’s test is significant (p-value less than 0.05) 36) . Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method was applied in extraction of components. Components with Eigenvalues over 1 were retained as components. With the assumption of all items were uncorrelated with each other, Varimax rotation was applied in order to optimize the loading factor of each item on the extracted components. Items with loading factor more than plus or minus 0.3 were considered as an acceptable loading factor.
RESULT A total of 90 (90%) students responded to the questionnaire. 50 (55.6%) were female students. All of them were at age of 16 year-old, Malay and Muslim. Reliability analysis Table 1 showed only 37 items had corrected-item total correlation more than 0.3 and 7 items has less than 0.3 (which were item 12, 13, 15, 21, 23, 33, and 40). Thus the 37 items were selected to be included in the questionnaire and the other 7 will be reviewed. The Cronbach’s alpha value for the 3SQ was 0.91. This analysis suggested that the items of 3SQ were reliable as having high internal con-
102
Muhamad Saiful B. Y.
Table 1. The theoretical constructs, reliability and factor analysis of 3SQ *Hypothetical
Corrected Item-Total
Cronbach’s Alpha if Item
groups
Correlation
Deleted
loading
a
No 1
Items
a
b
Factor
b
Factor
Peperiksaan [Examination]
ARS
0.39
0.908
0.71
II
2
Ketinggalan dalam mengikuti jadual ulangkaji [Getting behind revision schedule]
ARS
0.30
0.909
0.58
II
3
Terlalu banyak perkara yang perlu dipelajari [Too many content to be learnt]
ARS
0.39
0.908
0.68
II
ARS
0.52
0.907
0.72
II
ARS
0.33
0.909
0.33
II
[Tests are too frequent]
ARS
0.61
0.906
0.63
II
Kekurangan masa untuk membuat ulangkaji [Lack of time to do revision]
ARS
0.40
0.908
0.65
II
IntraRS
0.33
0.909
0.49
IV
ARS
0.48
0.907
0.63
II
TRS
0.42
0.908
0.40
VI
4
Sukar untuk memahami matapelajaran [Difficulties in understanding content that have been learnt]
5
Mendapat markah yang rendah [Getting poor marks]
6 7 8 9
Ujian yang terlalu banyak/kerap
Harapan terhadap diri sendiri untuk lakukan yang terbaik [High self-expectation] Keadaan pembelajaran yang penuh persaingan [Competitive learning environment]
10
Tidak dapat menjawab soalan yang diberikan oleh guru [Unable to answer questions from teachers]
11
Tugasan yang diberikan oleh guru terlalu banyak [Too many assignments given by teachers]
InterRS
0.49
0.907
0.40
I
12
Penglibatan di dalam perbincangan secara berkumpulan [Participation in group dicussions]
GSRS
0.13
0.911
0.47
V
13
Penglibatan di dalam pembentangan kelas [Participation in class presentation]
GSRS
0.22
0.910
0.72
V
14
Harapan orang lain untuk lakukan yang terbaik IntraRS
0.38
0.909
0.66
IV
IntraRS
0.23
0.910
0.42
IV
[unfair assessment grading systems]
ARS
0.44
0.908
0.34
II
Jadual waktu pembelajaran yang terlalu padat [Learning schedule are too packed]
ARS
0.32
0.909
0.45
II
GSRS
0.42
0.908
0.47
V
TRS
0.40
0.908
0.72
VI
TRS
0.54
0.907
0.37
VI
GSRS
0.23
0.910
0.59
V
InterRS
0.49
0.907
0.49
I
IntraRS
0.21
0.910
0.53
IV
[High expectation imposed by others] 15
Merasakan diri serba kekurangan [Feeling of incompetence]
16 17 18
Sistem permarkahan ujian/peperiksaan yang tidak telus
Kurang masa bersama keluarga dan rakan-rakan [Lack of free time with family and friends]
19
Guru kurang kemahiran mengajar [Teachers lack of teaching skills]
20
Kurang bahan-bahan bacaan [Insufficient reading material]
21
Menjawab soalan yang diberikan oleh rakan-rakan [Answering friends’ questions]
22
Tugasan yang diberikan oleh guru tidak bersesuaian [Inappropriate assignments given by teachers]
23
Berbual dengan rakan-rakan tentang masalah peribadi [Talking personal problems with peers]
103 24
Menghadapi kerenah rakan-rakan
This item was deleted during preliminary try out
(Facing friends’ inappropriate behaviours) 25
Perselisihan faham dengan rakan-rakan sekolah [Conflict with peers]
InterRS
0.42
0.908
0.51
I
LTRS
0.42
0.908
0.52
III
InterRS
0.55
0.906
0.86
I
InterRS
0.51
0.907
0.87
I
[Verbal or physical abuse done by family]
InterRS
0.48
0.907
0.82
I
30
Perselisihan faham dengan keluarga [Conflict with family]
InterRS
0.57
0.906
0.76
I
31
Perselisihan faham dengan guru [Conflict with teachers]
InterRS
0.57
0.906
0.80
I
32
Kehendak diri untuk berhenti sekolah InterRS
0.32
0.909
0.55
I
GSRS
0.19
0.910
0.45
V
[Lack of guidance and supervision from teachers]
LTRS
0.53
0.907
0.53
III
Kurang mendapat maklumbalas daripada guru [Lack of feedback from teachers]
LTRS
0.59
0.906
0.58
III
Tidak jelas dengan apa yang diharapkan daripada saya [Uncertainty of what are expected from me]
LTRS
0.46
0.908
0.73
III
LTRS
0.50
0.907
0.59
III
InterRS
0.44
0.908
0.60
I
[Interruptions by others during learning]
InterRS
0.61
0.906
0.61
I
Belajar demi memperbaiki nasib keluarga [Studying for the sake of family]
IntraRS
0.07
0.913
0.69
IV
41
Keadaan kelas yang terlalu padat [Crowded classroom]
InterRS
0.58
0.906
0.55
I
42
Berfikiran negatif terhadap diri sendiri IntraRS
0.43
0.908
0.54
IV
GSRS
0.38
0.909
0.36
V
LTRS
0.45
0.908
0.59
III
IntraRS
0.50
0.907
0.40
IV
26 27 28
Kurang motivasi untuk belajar [Lack of motivation to learn] Penderaan secara verbal atau fizikal oleh rakan [Verbal or physical abuse done by peers] Penderaan secara verbal atau fizikal oleh guru [Verbal or physical abuse done by teachers]
29
Penderaan secara verbal atau fizikal oleh keluarga
[Unwillingness to go to school] 33
Kehendak keluarga untuk meneruskan persekolahan [Family desire to continue schooling]
34 35 36 37
Kurang mendapat bimbingan daripada guru
Kerja-kerja yang telah disiapkan jarang dihargai [Lack of recognition to work done]
38
Kehendak keluarga untuk berhenti sekolah [Family desire to stop schooling]
39 40
Seri diganggu oleh orang lain ketika sedang belajar
[Negative thinking toward own-self] 43
Datang lewat ke sekolah [Came late to the school]
44
Memberi jawapan yang salah di dalam kelas [Giving wrong answer in the class]
(45)
Kemungkinan gagal melanjutkan pelajaran ke universiti [Afraid of the possibility not getting place in any university]
*Theoretical constructs; ARS = Academic Related Stressor, InterRS = Interpersonal Related Stressor, IntraRS = Intrapersonal Related Stressor, LTRS = Learning & Teaching Related Stressors, GSRS = Social Related Stressors, TRS = Teacher Related Stressors. a
Reliability analysis; Cronbach’s alpha. Total Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.91
b
Factor analysis; Principal Component Analysis with rotation of Varimax.
104
Muhamad Saiful B. Y.
Figure 1. Scree Plot (Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis with rotation methods of Varimax) Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha value of stressor groups Stressor groups
Cronbach’s Alpha
Interpersonal related stressors (InterRS); consist of 12 items.
0.90
Academic Related Stressors (ARS); consist of 10 items.
0.83
Learning Teaching related stressors (LTRS); consist of 6 items Intrapersonal related stressor (IntraRS); consist of 7 items.
0.81 0.73
Social-Group related stressors (GSRS); consist of 6 items Teacher related stressors (TRS); consist of 3 items
0.58 0.60
sistency. Factor analysis The sample was adequate as indicated by i) KMO value was 0.68 and ii) Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p-value < 0.001)36). Scree plot (figure 1) showed the total number of components that was extracted using PCA with rotation method of Varimax. The scree plot showed that 6 components were extracted (as pointed by an arrow in the figure 1). The extraction result was shown in table 1. Approximately 53.59% of total variance was explained by these 6 factors. The factor analysis showed that all the items were constructed according to the hypothetical groups. Reliability analysis of stressor groups Table 2 showed the Cronbach’s alpha values of each stressor group. Cronbach’s alpha values of items ranged from 0.58-0.90. This analysis suggested that the stressor groups were reliable as having acceptable internal consistency.
DISCUSSION Findings from reliability analysis suggested that most of the preliminary items have corrected-item total correlation value more than 0.3 as shown in table 1; therefore the items were included in the 3SQ. Some of the items have corrected-item total correlation value less than 0.3; however, the items were remained in the 3SQ since they did not alter the internal consistency of the instrument. All the items have
shown a measure of high internal consistency as having Cronbach’s alpha value more than 0.735-38) as shown in the table 1; it reflected the reliability of the 3SQ. The findings were evidence to support and suggest that the 3SQ was a reliable instrument that could be used in the future to indentify stressors among adolescents in secondary school. Factor analysis has shown that the 44 items were loaded into the six hypothetical groups as shown in table 1. All the items were fit very well according to the six groups as all the items had loading factor more than 0.337-38). It reflected that the 3SQ had a good construct. It was evidence to suggest that the 3SQ measured what it should measure. The findings were evidence to support and suggest that the 3SQ was a valid instrument to determine stressors among adolescents in secondary school. It is noteworthy that present study just explored the possible constructs of the 3SQ, thus it is recommended that confirmatory factor analysis should be done in the future study to test and verify the hypothesis that a relationship between the observed variables and their underlying latent constructs exists37). Reliability analysis has shown that all the stressors groups have shown a measure of acceptable to high internal consistency as their Cronbach’s alpha value more than 0.5 35,38) as shown in table 2. These findings were another evidence to support and suggest that the 3SQ was a reliable instrument to identify stressors among adolescents in secondary school. It is noteworthy that this study has its limitations. The first limitation was the sample size used in the present study was relatively small. The second limitation was this study may not represent the actual population distribution in term of religion, race, year of study, age and type of schools since it only involved adolescents of a government secondary school. Thus, the present study results should be interpreted cautiously. Further study with better sample
105 size and methodology rigour should be carried out in the future to confirm the present findings. However, it is worthy to highlight that, this study has provided useful data on this area for future studies.
14) 15)
CONCLUSION
16) 17)
This study showed that the 3SQ had a good psychometric value. It is a valid and reliable instrument that can be used in the future to identify stressors among secondary school students.
18) 19) 20)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Our special thanks to Medical Students Facilitator Team for their contribution to this study. Our deepest appreciation to the PPD Kota Bahru for their support in this study. Our special thanks to Dr Ahmad Fuad Abdul Rahim and Dr Mohamad Najib Mat Pa from Medical Education Department USM for their help in this study. Last but not least, our deepest thanks to the secondary school students for their participation in this study.
21) 22) 23) 24)
25) 26)
REFERENCES 27) 1) Aktekin M, Karaman T, Senol YY, Erdem S, Erengin H, Akaydin M. Anxiety, depression and stressful life events among medical students: a prospective study in Antalya, Turkey. Med Educ 2001; 35(1): 12-17. 2) Dahlin M, Joneborg N, Runeson Bo. Stress and depression among medical students: a cross sectional study. Med Educ 2005; 39: 594604. 3) Firth J. Levels and sources of stress in medical students. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 1986; 292(6529): 1177-1180. 4) Guthrie E, Black D, Bagalkote H, Shaw C, Campbell M, Creed F. Psychological stress and burnout in medical students: a five-year prospective longitudinal study. J R Soc Med 1998; 91(5): 237-243. 5) Guthrie EA, Black D, Shaw CM, Hamilton J, Creed FH, Tomenson B. Embarking upon a medical career: psychological morbidity in first year medical students. Med Educ 1995; 29(5): 337-341. 6) Ko SM, Kua EH, Fones CSL. Stress & the undergraduate. Singapore Med J 1999; 40: 627-630. 7) Liselotte ND, Matthew RT, Tait DS. Medical students distress: causes, consequences, and proposed solutions. Mayo Clin Proc 2005; 80(12): 1613-1622. 8) Saipanish R. Stress among medical students in a Thai medical school. Med Teach 2003; 25(5): 502-506. 9) Sherina MS, Lekhraj R, Nadarajan K. Prevalence of emotional disorder among medical students in a Malaysian university. Asia Pac Fam Med 2003; 2: 213-217. 10) Zaid ZA, Chan SC, Ho JJ. Emotional disorders among medical students in a Malaysian private medical school. Singapore Med J 2007; 48(10): 895-899. 11) Nair MKC, Paul MK, John R. Prevalence of depression among adolescents. Indian J Paediatr 2004; 71(6): 523-524. 12) Intan HMH. Stress, coping and support in the adolescent years. Kajian Malaysia 2007: 25(1); 97-115. 13) Brenda JL, Patricia AJ. Adolescents stress, coping strategies and psy-
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
35) 36) 37) 38)
chological health in the family context. J Youth Adolesc 2000; 29(1): 15-43. Burnett PC, Fanshawe JP. Measuring School-Related Stressors in Adolescents. J Youth Adolesc 1997; 26(4): 415-428. Rosenham DL, Seligman ME. Abnormal psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Norton, 1989. Selye H. Stress without distress. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Myers DG. Stress and Health. In, Exploring Psychology. 6th ed. New York: Worth Publishers, 2005. Lazarus RS. Theory-Based Stress Measurement. Psychol Inquiry 1990; 1(1): 3-13. Linn BS, Zeppa R. Stress in junior medical students: relationship to personality and performance. J Med Educ 1984; 59(1): 7-12. Whitman NA, Spendlove DC, Clark CH. Student stress: effect and solution,. Association for the Study of Higher Education, ERIC Clearing on Higher Education, Washington, D.C., 1985. Sidek NI. Remaja dan Kesihatan Mental, Utusan Online, retrieved on 25 Sept. 2009 Silver HK, Glicken AD. Medical student abuse: Incidence, severity, and significance. JAMA 1990; 263(4): 527-532. Shapiro SL, Shapiro DE, Schwartz GE. Stress management in medical education: a review of the literature. Acad Med 2000; 75(7): 748-759. Rosal MC, Ockene IS, Ockene JK, Barrett SV, Ma Y, Hebert JR. A longitudinal study of students’ depression at one medical school. Acad Med 1997; 72(6): 542-546. Clark EJ, Rieker PP. Gender differences in relationships and stress of medical and law students. J Med Educ 1986; 61(1): 32-40. Niemi PM, Vainiomaki PT. Medical students’ distress: quality, continuity and gender differences during a six-year medical programme. Med Teach 2006; 28(2): 136-141. Newbury-Birch D, White M, Kamali F. Factors influencing alcohol and illicit drug use amongst medical students. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000; 59(2): 125-130. Pickard M, Bates L, Dorian M, Greig H, Saint D. Alcohol and drug use in second-year medical students at the University of Leeds. Med Educ 2000; 34(2): 148-150. Flaherty JA, Richman JA. Substance use and addiction among medical students, residents, and physicians. Psychiatric Clin North Am 1993; 16(1): 189-197. Kaufman DM, Day V, Mensink D. Stressors in 1st-year medical school: comparison of a conventional and problem-based curriculum. Teach Learn Med 1996; 8(4), 188-194. Kaufman DM, Day V, Mensink D. Stressors in Medical School: Relation to curriculum format and year of study. Teach Learn Med 1998; 10(3), 188-194. Henning K, Sydney E, Shaw D. Perfectionism, the impostor phenomenon and psychological adjustment in medical, dental, nursing and pharmacy students. Med Educ 1998; 32: 456-464. Moffat JR, McConnachie A, Ross S, Morrison JM. First year medical student stress and coping in a problem-based learning curriculum. Med Educ 2004; 38: 482-491. Muhamad SBY, Ahmad FAR, Mohd JY. The Development and Validity of the Medical Student Stressor Questionnaire (MSSQ). ASEAN J Psychiatr Jan - June 2010: 11 (1). Available online at http://www.aseanjournalofpsychiatry.org/oe11105.htm Downing SM. Reliability: on the reproducibility of assessment data. Med Educ 2004; 38: 1006-1012. DeCoster, J. Data Analysis in SPSS, 2004. Retrieved on 14th October 2008 from http://www.stat-help.com/notes.html. Indrayan A, Satyanarayana L. Biostatistics for medical, nursing and pharmacy students. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India, 2006. Thomas KC. Fundamentals of educational research. 2nd ed. United States of America: McGraw-Hill, 1996.
