Dundee Stress State Questionnaire (DSSQ)
(Matthews et al., 2002 ).
Variable
The DSSQ aims to assess affective, motivational and cognitive aspects of the states experienced in perfor-
mance settings. It includes the three principal mood scales of the UMACL (see above), two motivational scales
(Intrinsic Interest and Success Striving), and six cognitive scales. These are Self-Focus, Self-Esteem, Concentration,
Confidence and Control, Task-Related Cognitive Interference and Task-Irrelevant Cognitive Interference. These last
two scales are shortened versions of the Cognitive Interference Questionnaire ( Sarason, Sarason, Keefe, Hayes, &
Shearin 1986 ). The DSSQ may also be scored for three second-order factors of task engagement, distress and worry.
A short version of the scale measuring only these three factors is also available ( Matthews & Zeidner, 2012 ).
Description
The DSSQ is made up of four sections. Section I is the UMACL, described above. Section 2 includes 15 motiva-
tion items. Section 3 has 30 items concerning the respondent’s ‘style of thought’. Section 4 has 16 items that ask
respondents to rate how frequently they experienced various thoughts about the task and their personal con-
cerns. Sections 2 and 3 use a 5-point Likert-type response scale (0 /C04), whereas Section 4 uses a 6-point Likert-
type response scale (1 /C05)/C0(see sample items below).
Sample
The initial sample used for scale development ( Matthews et al., 1999 ) comprised 616 undergraduates from the UK,
170 undergraduates from the USA, and 151 British customer service agents. There were 583 females and 354 males.
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients for the three principal scales ranged from .76 to .89 in the Matthews et al. (1999,
2002) studies, calculated in the British participants ( N5767).
Test/C0Retest
Matthews et al. (2002) reported test /C0retest stabilities for the DSSQ primary scales for two time intervals.
Across the 10 /C015 min required to perform one of several tasks, stabilities varied from .37 to .66 ( N5517). Across
approximately six months, stabilities ranged from .00 to .46, in an occupational sample ( N586).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Matthews and Campbell (2009) administered both the Spielberger STPI and the DSSQ ( N5144). Task Engagement
correlated most highly with STPI state Curiosity (.40), Distress with Anxiety (.62) and Depression (.53), and Worry
with Anxiety (.45). Matthews, Szalma, Panganiban, Neubauer, and Warm (2013) report correlations with the PANAS
(N596). Task Engagement correlated at .47 with Positive A ffect, Distress at .51 with Negative Affect, and Worry at
.42 with Negative Affect. Thus, the DSSQ factors correlate ap propriately with measures of state affect, but the moder-
ate magnitudes of the correlations suggest the factors are distinct from these affective scales. In psychophysiological
studies, the Engagement and Distress factors have also been found to be modestly correlated with measures of auto-
nomic arousal, electroencephalographic response, and cerebral blood flow velocity ( Fairclough & Venables, 2006;
Matthews et al., 2013 ). Bivariate correlations are typically in the 0.2 to 0.4 range ( Matthews et al., 2010 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
Matthews et al. (2002) found that the Eysenck extraversion and neuroticism dimensions were weakly corre-
lated with post-task state in an occupational sample ( N5328). Matthews et al. (2013) summarized FFM data
from four studies (total N5933). Again, trait-state correlations suggested divergence, with no correlations in
post-task data exceeding 0.4. Traits were somewhat more strongly associated with pre-task state, especially for
associations between Neuroticism and Distress. Studies have investigated various other more narrowly defined
traits, such as those linked to cognitive dysfunction and fatigue ( Shaw et al., 2010 ) and to mood-regulation
(Matthews & Fellner, 2012 ). All these studies suggest divergence of trait and state although some meaningful
associations have been found ( Matthews et al., 2013 ).217 OVERVIEW OF THE MEASURES
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS