Perceived Job Stressors scale

Abstract

The Perceived Job Stressors Scale (PJSS), originally conceptualized and formulated by psychometrics and occupational health researchers Allen D. Kanner, Dalia Kafry, and Ayala Malach Pines in 1978, represents a paradigmatic shift in the assessment of work-related psychological strain. Historically, occupational stress inventories concentrated predominantly or exclusively on the overt presence of deleterious working conditions—such as role ambiguity, acute overload, physical environmental hazards, and interpersonal friction. In contrast, the theoretical architecture of the PJSS introduces a dual-axis framework positing that psychological distress and occupational tedium stem not merely from active noxious inputs, but equally—and often more insidiously—from the persistent, cumulative absence of positive, growth-promoting work and life experiences. In its comprehensive form, the instrument captures two distinct dimensions: the absence of 17 positive occupational conditions (e.g., autonomy, variety, significance, tangible rewards, and emotional reciprocity) and the presence of 14 negative occupational stressors (e.g., bureaucratic interference, overload, decision load, and conflicting demands). Subsequent psychometric adaptations, notably by Etzion et al. (1998) and Melamed et al. (1991), refined the inventory into a 23-item unidimensional or bi-factor operationalization (incorporating 11 positive items reverse-scored and 12 negative items) designed to yield a unified index of global perceived job stress. Administered via a 7-point Likert-type frequency metric ranging from 1 (“very infrequently”) to 7 (“very frequently”), the scale exhibits robust psychometric credentials, with internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) consistently falling between .72 and .84 across heterogeneous industrial, professional, and human service populations. Empirical inquiries substantiate its construct, convergent, and criterion-related validity, demonstrating significant positive associations with vital exhaustion, burnout, somatic complaints, and cardiovascular reactivity, alongside inverse correlations with perceived job control, structural social support, and intrinsic job satisfaction. This article provides an exhaustive psychometric, theoretical, and methodological exposition of the PJSS.

Keywords

Perceived Job Stressors Scale, PJSS, occupational tedium, job stress measurement, absence of positive conditions, burnout, daily hassles, work-related strain, psychometrics, job characteristics model

Authors

The scale was developed and refined across seminal publications in occupational health psychology, industrial sociology, and clinical psychometrics. The principal investigators responsible for its foundational design and psychometric cross-validation include:

• Allen D. Kanner, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley; widely acknowledged for pioneering work on the assessment of minor daily stressors, daily hassles, and psychological uplifts within the Lazarus stress and coping research collective.
• Dalia Kafry (Pines), Ph.D. — University of California, Berkeley, and international organizational consulting groups; a foundational researcher in burnout syndrome, tedium, and gender dynamics in occupational fatigue.
• Ayala Malach Pines, Ph.D. (1945–2015) — Former Professor and Head of the Department of Business Administration at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel; internationally acclaimed authority on clinical burnout, marital strain, existential tedium, and stress management, author of numerous classic texts including Burnout: From Tedium to Personal Growth.
• Subsequent Validating Researchers: Dalia Etzion, Ph.D. (Faculty of Management, Tel Aviv University) and Samuel Melamed, Ph.D. (National Institute of Occupational Health and Tel Aviv University), who contributed extensively to the structural reduction, cardiovascular validation, and longitudinal psychometric evaluation of the 23-item refined PJSS.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Perceived Job Stressors Scale is to deliver an ecologically valid, psychometrically sound diagnostic instrument capable of capturing the subtle, long-term phenomenological experience of workplace strain. Traditional paradigms in occupational stress measurement, such as early iterations of life-events scales adapted for industry, operated under the implicit assumption that psychological pathology is driven primarily by acute, disruptive events or active environmental stressors (e.g., equipment failures, interpersonal disputes, or sudden organizational restructuring). Kanner, Kafry, and Pines (1978) fundamentally challenged this narrow premise, demonstrating that an individual’s psychological well-being can be equally eroded through the ongoing “conspicuous absence” of rewarding, fulfilling, and supportive occupational features.

In occupational medicine, human resources diagnostics, and clinical psychology, the PJSS fulfills several distinct objectives:

• Identification of Existential Tedium: The scale differentiates between acute stress (the physiological and mental state produced by overwhelming negative demands) and tedium (a state of psychological, emotional, and attitudinal exhaustion characterized by chronic boredom, alienation, and perceived lack of meaning). By quantifying the deficit in positive experiences, the instrument detects employees at risk of disengagement and cynicism before classic crisis-level burnout symptoms manifest.
• Comprehensive Ergonomic and Psychosocial Auditing: Within industrial and organizational psychology, the PJSS serves as an actionable organizational development tool. By breaking down positive features (such as autonomy, variety, appreciation, and emotional reciprocity) alongside negative features (such as bureaucratic hassles and under-load), the instrument enables human resource specialists and ergonomics consultants to pinpoint specific micro-environmental deficits requiring structural job redesign.
• Epidemiological and Occupational Health Research: For clinical and epidemiological researchers, the PJSS provides a continuous, highly sensitive metric of chronic psychological burden. It enables empirical modeling of the allostatic load produced by the dual burden of coping with daily hassles while simultaneously operating within an emotionally and cognitively impoverished work environment. As demonstrated in longitudinal cardiovascular studies, this chronic state of unmitigated strain serves as a critical predictor of objective physiological deregulation, including sustained ambulatory blood pressure elevation, lipid abnormalities, and sleep disturbances.
• Evaluation of Workplace Interventions: The scale offers pre- and post-intervention utility to measure whether organizational change initiatives—such as autonomous work group structuring, transformational leadership training, or job enrichment programs—actually succeed in elevating positive occupational features while attenuating bureaucratic and emotional overextension.

Psychological Construct

The theoretical construct operationalized by the Perceived Job Stressors Scale is rooted in a multidimensional conceptualization of occupational strain, operating as an integrated function of environmental deficits and demanding intrusions. Rather than viewing job stress as a monolithic entity, the construct bifurcates into two distinct experiential domains that interact to produce occupational distress, vital exhaustion, and somatic strain.

1. The Absence of Positive Work and Life Conditions (Resource Depletion / Tedium Axis)

The foundational insight embedded within the PJSS is that human beings require consistent psychological nutrients to sustain occupational motivation, cognitive engagement, and emotional equilibrium. When work environments fail to provide these nutrients, individuals experience tedium, an insidious psychological construct defined by emotional, mental, and physical exhaustion accompanied by a pervasive sense of futility. The lack of positive conditions is measured across 17 distinct qualitative indicators:

• Intrinsic Cognitive Elements: Encompassing deficits in Variety (monotony, repetitive operational cycles lacking stimulation) and Complexity (tasks that fail to engage the intellectual capabilities or problem-solving faculties of the worker).
• Self-Determination and Volition: Encompassing Autonomy (the restriction of individual agency, decision latitude, and methodological control) and Policy Influence (the subjective perception of powerlessness regarding organizational governance and operational guidelines).
• Existential Meaning and Competence: Encompassing Significance (the subjective judgment that one’s labor lacks broader social or systemic value), Success (the chronic absence of mastery experiences or goal attainment), Self-expression (inability to infuse one’s authentic identity into work outputs), and Self-actualization (the foreclosure of professional growth, self-development, and talent realization).
• Informational and Material Reinforcement: Encompassing lack of Feedback (operational obscurity regarding performance efficacy), Tangible Rewards (inadequate financial compensation, physical resources, or material incentives), and Appreciation (the absence of social validation, gratitude, and esteem from supervisors, colleagues, or clients).
• Interpersonal and Socio-Emotional Resources: Encompassing deficits in Personal Relations (isolation from genuine interpersonal bonds), Unconditional Support (the absence of a psychological safety net during personal or professional crises), Sharing (lack of collaborative dialogue, communicative openness, and collective problem-solving), and Emotional Reciprocity (asymmetrical social dynamics where the worker continually expends emotional labor without receiving reciprocal care or empathy).
• Restorative and Environmental Resources: Encompassing the lack of Opportunity to Take Time Off (inability to disengage from work to replenish psychological resources) and the absence of a Comfortable Environment (suboptimal physical ergonomics, inadequate lighting, excessive noise, or unsupportive working conditions).

2. The Presence of Negative Work and Life Conditions (Demands / Acute Stress Axis)

Parallel to the lack of positive resources, the construct incorporates 14 overt negative stressors representing direct environmental pressures, role conflicts, and physiological burdens:

• Workload and Quantitative Demands: Encompassing Overload (excessive volume of tasks exceeding temporal or cognitive capacities), Under-load (paradoxical occupational under-stimulation, enforced idleness, or lack of meaningful tasks), and Decision Load (burdensome, high-stakes decision-making pressures that cause cognitive fatigue).
• Psychological and Evaluative Pressures: Encompassing Demands for Proving Oneself (hyper-competitive climates necessitating constant justification of one’s competence), Demands for Innovation (relentless pressure to generate novel solutions in unstable settings), Negative Consequences (the looming threat of punitive measures, catastrophic failures, or severe occupational sanctions), and the Experience of Guilt (internalized distress arising from perceived failure to meet internal or organizational ethical/performance standards).
• Systemic and Organizational Roadblocks: Encompassing Bureaucratic Interference (institutional friction, red tape, and systemic bottlenecks) and Administrative Hassles (trivial yet time-consuming procedural obligations that distract from core technical tasks).
• Role and Boundary Boundary Conflicts: Encompassing Conflicting Demands from Other People (classic role conflict involving contradictory expectations from peers, managers, or clients), Emotional Overextension (drainage of emotional reserves due to intense, prolonged interpersonal interaction), and Overextension of Commitments and Deadlines (unrealistic time management demands causing chronic anticipatory stress).
• Somatic and Environmental Threats: Encompassing Physical Danger (exposure to bodily harm, occupational hazards, or safety violations) and Environmental Pressures (adverse ambient conditions such as extreme heat, pollution, or spatial crowding).

Theoretical Framework

The Perceived Job Stressors Scale is anchored in the convergence of several major theoretical paradigms within occupational psychology, cognitive stress theory, and existential humanistic philosophy.

$$\text{Perceived Stress} = f\Big(\sum \text{Negative Demands} + \sum (\text{Max Positive} – \text{Positive Resources})\Big)$$

1. The Tedium vs. Burnout Framework (Kanner, Kafry, & Pines)

Historically, the scale’s genesis occurred in tandem with the formulation of Pines and Kafry’s (1978) model of tedium. Operating under the influence of phenomenological and clinical observations, Kanner, Kafry, and Pines argued that human stress research had become overly preoccupied with Hans Selye’s general adaptation paradigm, which conceptualized stress primarily as a non-specific physiological reaction to excessive noxious stimuli. They proposed that existential emptiness—the lack of intellectual engagement, meaning, and positive reinforcement—could produce an identical or even more debilitating state of exhaustion. Tedium was defined as the gradual erosion of emotional, mental, and physical energy resulting from chronic work environments devoid of self-actualizing features. The PJSS was specifically designed to operationalize this theoretical insight by treating positive feature deficits as direct stressors.

2. The Cognitive-Phenomenological Model of Stress (Lazarus & Folkman)

The scale is fundamentally aligned with Richard Lazarus’s Transactional Model of Stress and Coping. According to Lazarus, stress does not reside purely within the objective environment nor solely within the individual; rather, it emerges from a subjective cognitive appraisal process. In the PJSS, employees are not asked to catalog objective workplace parameters (e.g., number of emails received, decibels of ambient noise), but rather to report their perceived frequency of these conditions. The transactional paradigm underscores that an environment lacking positive conditions undergoes a primary appraisal process wherein the worker perceives a profound threat to their professional efficacy, self-worth, and psychological resources.

3. Herzberg’s Motivator-Hygiene Theory

The dual-category structure of the PJSS reflects clear conceptual resonance with Frederick Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory of job motivation. Herzberg posited that job dissatisfaction is driven by hygiene factors (extrinsic elements such as working conditions, administrative red tape, and safety), whereas true job satisfaction and psychological flourishing are governed by motivator factors (intrinsic elements such as achievement, recognition, autonomy, and personal growth). The PJSS takes Herzberg’s thesis a step further: it mathematically integrates the absence of motivators (the positive features) as active contributors to overall occupational strain, demonstrating that an absence of hygiene issues does not guarantee an absence of stress if motivational nutrients are lacking.

4. Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) and Conservation of Resources (COR) Precursors

Although developed decades before the formalization of the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model (Demerouti et al., 2001) and Stevan Hobfoll’s Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (1989), the PJSS serves as an intellectual direct antecedent to both frameworks. Under COR theory, psychological stress occurs when individuals experience resource loss, the threat of resource loss, or an inability to gain adequate resources following significant resource investment. The positive items of the PJSS represent psychological, cognitive, and structural resources. When an employee invests heavy emotional and physical effort into an organization but fails to reap variety, significance, rewards, or appreciation, a catastrophic resource deficit occurs. Similarly, the simultaneous tracking of demands (negative items) and resources (positive items) foreshadows the dual energetic and motivational pathways formalized within the JD-R paradigm.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Perceived Job Stressors Scale has been thoroughly evaluated across multiple occupational cohorts, including human service professionals, blue-collar manufacturing workers, healthcare personnel, and corporate executives. Psychometric investigations have confirmed its construct, convergent, criterion, and discriminant validity.

1. Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was initially established through empirical verification that the absence of positive conditions acts as an independent, statistically robust predictor of occupational maladjustment, separate from the mere presence of negative conditions. Kanner, Kafry, and Pines (1978) demonstrated that when negative stressors are statistically held constant using hierarchical multiple regression, the absence of positive conditions accounts for unique, incremental variance in self-reported tedium ($R^2$ changes ranging from .14 to .26, $p < .001$). This confirmed that the “lack of positive features” is an authentic, non-redundant psychometric construct that cannot be subsumed under traditional job demand indices.

2. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been extensively demonstrated through robust, statistically significant correlations with validated instruments assessing burnout, psychological distress, and occupational strain:

• Correlations with Burnout: Across studies by Etzion et al. (1998) and Pines et al., composite PJSS scores exhibited strong positive correlations with the Tedium Scale / Burnout Measure, with Pearson correlation coefficients consistently falling within the range of $r = .48$ to $r = .65$ ($p < .001$). Individuals reporting frequent negative stressors and rare positive conditions exhibited classical emotional exhaustion and depersonalization.
• Correlations with Psychological Distress: Positive associations have been documented between the PJSS and indices of general psychological strain, including the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) and the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90), with correlations hovering between $r = .35$ and $r = .52$.
• Somatic Symptomatology: In clinical occupational health evaluations, PJSS total scores correlated significantly with somatic complaints, including tension headaches, sleep fragmentation, gastrointestinal distress, and musculoskeletal pain ($r = .30$ to $r = .44$, $p < .01$).

3. Discriminant and Criterion Validity

The scale demonstrates sound discriminant validity by negatively correlating with protective organizational and psychological buffers:

• Perceived Control and Autonomy: PJSS scores correlate negatively with perceived decision latitude and locus of control at work ($r = -.38$ to $r = -.54$), confirming that high structural empowerment buffers against the perceived accumulation of stressors.
• Social Support: Strong inverse correlations have been observed with perceived supervisory and coworker social support ($r = -.36$ to $r = -.49$), particularly driven by the interpersonal deficit items of the scale (such as lack of unconditional support, sharing, and emotional reciprocity).
• Physiological and Cardiovascular Outcomes: In an exemplary physiological criterion-validation study conducted by Melamed et al. (1991), the 23-item version of the PJSS was evaluated against cardiovascular biomarkers. The authors discovered that high scores on perceived job stressors were significantly correlated with elevated baseline blood pressure, blunted post-stress cardiovascular recovery, elevated resting heart rates, and adverse lipid profiles (elevated total cholesterol-to-HDL ratios), even after controlling for classical epidemiological confounding factors such as age, body mass index, smoking, and physical activity.

Reliability

The reliability of the Perceived Job Stressors Scale has been verified through repeated psychometric evaluations demonstrating high internal consistency, acceptable split-half reliability, and adequate temporal stability over time.

1. Internal Consistency

Internal consistency of the scale, as quantified by Cronbach’s coefficient alpha ($\alpha$), reliably meets or exceeds psychometric standards for applied and research instrumentation across diverse occupational samples:

• Original 31-Item Inventory: In the foundational validation studies by Kanner, Kafry, and Pines (1978), the subscale measuring the lack of positive conditions yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of $\alpha = .86$, while the negative stressors subscale yielded $\alpha = .83$. When combined into an omnibus strain score (with positive items reverse-scored), the overall alpha reached $\alpha = .89$.
• Refined 23-Item Inventory: In the widespread industrial and professional validation studies conducted by Melamed et al. (1991) and Etzion et al. (1998), the consolidated 23-item scale (comprising 11 positive conditions reverse-scored and 12 negative conditions) exhibited coefficient alpha values consistently ranging between $\alpha = .72$ and $\alpha = .84$.
• Subscale Reliabilities in Short Forms: Subscale analyses for the 11-item positive resource deficit dimension typically yield alpha values between $.76$ and $.82$, while the 12-item negative demand dimension yields alphas between $.74$ and $.81$, indicating that both sub-dimensions retain substantive internal homogeneity without excessive item redundancy.

2. Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Because the PJSS assesses perceived environmental features that remain relatively stable absent structural organizational interventions, longitudinal evaluations reveal solid test-retest reliability:

• In prospective cohorts evaluated over 3-to-6-month intervals (e.g., Etzion et al., 1998), test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from $r_{tt} = .68$ to $r_{tt} = .77$, confirming that the scale captures enduring environmental appraisals rather than transient, state-dependent mood swings.
• When organizations underwent major structural reorganizations, PJSS scores demonstrated statistically significant longitudinal shifts, verifying the instrument’s sensitivity to real-world workplace modifications while retaining baseline psychometric stability in static environments.

Factor Analysis

The underlying latent dimensional structure of the Perceived Job Stressors Scale has been rigorously evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the initial psychometric modeling by Kanner et al. (1978), principal components analysis with varimax rotation was applied to the 31 original candidate items. The unconstrained factor extraction revealed a clear two-factor higher-order structure that accounted for a substantial proportion of the total variance:

• Factor 1: Deficit of Enriching / Positive Resources: The first major factor loaded heavily on items reflecting the absence of autonomy, variety, significance, appreciation, self-actualization, and emotional reciprocity, with primary factor loadings ranging from $.45$ to $.78$. Cross-loadings on negative demand items were uniformly low (typically $< .25$).
• Factor 2: Noxious Work Demands / Acute Stressors: The second major factor captured overt organizational strain, loading heavily on overload, bureaucratic interference, administrative hassles, conflicting demands, and decision load, with factor loadings spanning $.42$ to $.74$.

2. Structural Reduction and the 23-Item Model (Etzion et al., 1998)

Subsequent psychometric optimization by Etzion, Melamed, and colleagues sought to eliminate psychometrically redundant items, items with ambiguous factor structures, or items showing low item-total correlations ($r_{it} < .30$). Through iterative principal axis factoring, the original item pool was reduced to 23 items:

• 11 Positive Condition Items: Retaining core resource indicators (e.g., variety, autonomy, significance, feedback, appreciation, tangible rewards, and emotional support).
• 12 Negative Condition Items: Retaining high-impact chronic stressors (e.g., overload, conflicting demands, bureaucratic interference, administrative hassles, and emotional overextension).

In this 23-item formulation, researchers successfully fitted a higher-order bi-factor model or a composite unidimensional model where, after reverse-scoring the positive items, all items converge onto a single global latent construct of Perceived Job Stress.

3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices

Contemporary structural equation modeling (SEM) confirms the adequacy of the dual-factor and hierarchically integrated models. Typical fit indices reported in occupational health investigations demonstrate satisfactory goodness-of-fit for the two correlated first-order factors model:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.91$ to $.94$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.90$ to $.93$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.048$ to $.062$ (with $90%$ confidence intervals strictly below the $.08$ cutoff)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.045$ to $.058$

Alternative single-factor models (forcing all positive and negative items onto a single latent dimension without reverse-scoring transformation) demonstrate poor fit (CFI $< .75$, RMSEA $> .11$), empirically corroborating the theoretical distinction between the presence of stressors and the absence of resources.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The technical parameters and administration guidelines for the Perceived Job Stressors Scale are structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: Perceived Job Stressors Scale (PJSS)
• Alternative Titles in Literature: Kanner-Kafry-Pines Job Stressors Inventory; Lack of Positive and Presence of Negative Work Conditions Scale
• Instrument Classification: Self-report occupational psychometric questionnaire; psychosocial risk diagnostic
• Target Population: Adult employees, managerial personnel, healthcare workers, educators, and industrial labor cohorts across all standard employment sectors
• Item Inventory:
  • Full Baseline Version: 31 items (17 Lack of Positive Work and Life Conditions; 14 Negative Work and Life Stressors)
  • Etzion & Melamed Short Form: 23 items (11 positive conditions reverse-scored; 12 negative stressors)
• Response Format: 7-point Likert-type frequency scale anchored as follows:
  • $1$ = Very infrequently
  • $2$ = Infrequently
  • $3$ = Somewhat infrequently
  • $4$ = Neither
  • $5$ = Somewhat frequently
  • $6$ = Frequently
  • $7$ = Very frequently
• Administration Time: Approximately 7 to 12 minutes for paper-and-pencil or digital self-administration
• Scoring Protocol:
  • Subscale 1 (Positive Feature Deprivation): In the original dual-score model, items 1 through 17 are scored directly or reverse-scored depending on research design. When assessing resource deficit, higher ratings directly reflect higher frequency of the resource; to compute Lack of Positive Features, these items are reverse-scored ($1 \rightarrow 7, 2 \rightarrow 6, 3 \rightarrow 5, 4 \rightarrow 4, 5 \rightarrow 3, 6 \rightarrow 2, 7 \rightarrow 1$).
  • Subscale 2 (Negative Stressor Presence): The negative items are scored directly ($1$ to $7$). Higher scores indicate a greater perceived frequency of noxious workplace conditions.
  • Composite Global Stress Index: In the consolidated approach (Etzion et al., 1998), all positive items are reverse-scored and summed with the raw negative items. The aggregate sum is divided by the total number of items to yield a continuous global stress index ranging from $1.00$ to $7.00$, where higher mean scores reflect severe occupational distress and resource deprivation.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Perceived Job Stressors Scale was originally developed and published in 1978 by Allen D. Kanner, Dalia Kafry, and Ayala Pines in the Journal of Human Stress (Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 33–39). The copyright for the original article and measurement items was held by the Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation (subsequently published under Heldref Publications, Washington, DC, and now part of the Taylor & Francis academic publishing group).

For non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, and non-funded scientific inquiry, the instrument items are widely accessible in the public academic literature and are routinely utilized under academic fair-use provisions, provided that proper bibliographic citation is accorded to the original authors. Organizations, commercial consulting firms, or digital assessment platforms intending to deploy the scale for commercial diagnostics, proprietary assessment software, or corporate training programs should verify licensing requirements through the copyright holders or consult the corresponding publishers of the derivative validation studies (e.g., Taylor & Francis or the American Psychological Association).

References

• Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
• Etzion, D., Eden, D., & Lapidot, Y. (1998). Relief from job stressors and burnout: Reserve service as a respite. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.577
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
• Kanner, A. D., Kafry, D., & Pines, A. (1978). Conspicuous in its absence: The lack of positive conditions as a source of stress. Journal of Human Stress, 4(4), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/0097840X.1978.9934998
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Melamed, S., Kushnir, T., & Meir, E. I. (1991). Attenuating the impact of job drought: The moderating role of work and nonwork satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2(4), 345–353.
• Pines, A., & Kafry, D. (1978). Occupational tedium in the social services. Social Work, 23(6), 499–507. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/23.6.499
• Pines, A., Aronson, E., & Kafry, D. (1981). Burnout: From tedium to personal growth. Free Press.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)