Premenstrual Symptom Screening Tool for Working Women

1. Abstract

The Premenstrual Symptom Screening Tool for Working Women represents an essential psychometric advancement within occupational medicine and clinical psychometrics, bridging the gap between psychiatric categorization and occupational health functionality. Conventional diagnostic tools for premenstrual disorders—most notably instruments aligned with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), such as the Premenstrual Symptoms Screening Tool (PSST) and the Daily Record of Severity of Problems (DRSP)—have predominantly prioritized mood, affective disturbances, and psychiatric distress. Consequently, these legacy measures routinely underrepresent the systemic physical pain, somatic discomfort, and secondary occupational detriments that characterize premenstrual syndrome (PMS) among the female labor force. Developed by a multidisciplinary team led by Chihiro Takenoshita and Kyoko Nomura at Akita University, this multidimensional screening instrument was engineered using an initial pool of 47 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 0 = no symptoms to 4 = very severe symptoms).

The scale encompasses key symptom dimensions—including affective distress, physical/somatic manifestations, abdominal and localized pain, and direct operational interference with professional duties. Tested and psychometrically validated on an epidemiological cohort of 3,239 Japanese working women aged 18 to 41 across diverse employment classifications (e.g., clerical, service, professional, and technical sectors), the instrument underwent rigorous cross-validation using Bernoulli split-sampling. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA; n = 1,597) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; n = 1,642) demonstrated exceptional structural integrity, meeting modern fit indices (CFI > 0.90, TLI > 0.95, RMSEA < 0.08, and Average Variance Extracted [AVE] ≥ 0.50). The scale demonstrates superior internal consistency evaluated via Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega (ω), establishing high construct, convergent (against the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory), criterion (against the classic PSST), and predictive validity for self-reported presenteeism and absenteeism. It serves as an invaluable metric for occupational health researchers, institutional policymakers, and clinicians seeking to implement targeted workplace interventions, menstrual leave protocols, and ergonomic adjustments.

2. Keywords

premenstrual syndrome, occupational health, absenteeism, presenteeism, psychometrics, workplace productivity, screening tool, somatic symptoms, factor analysis, McDonald's omega

3. Authors

The Premenstrual Symptom Screening Tool for Working Women was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by a distinguished research collaborative in public health, occupational medicine, and biostatistics based primarily at Akita University, Japan:

• Chihiro Takenoshita — Department of Public Health, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
• Kisho Shimizu — Department of Public Health, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
• Miho Iida — Department of Public Health, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
• Fumiaki Taka — Department of Psychology, Faculty of Letters, Toyo University, Tokyo, Japan.
• Eri Maeda — Department of Public Health, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
• Songee Jung — Department of Public Health, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan.
• Kyoko Nomura (Corresponding Author) — Department of Public Health, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1-1 Hondo, Akita 010-8543, Japan. Email: [email protected].

4. Purpose

Measurement Objectives and Clinical-Occupational Rationale

The primary purpose of the Premenstrual Symptom Screening Tool for Working Women is to provide a standardized, psychometrically sound, and functionally sensitive metric for quantifying premenstrual symptomatology within occupational environments. For decades, premenstrual assessment tools have operated under diagnostic paradigms developed primarily within psychiatry and reproductive endocrinology. These established tools were engineered primarily to diagnose Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (PMDD) according to strict psychiatric classification systems such as the DSM-IV and DSM-5. While effective for psychiatric triage, this historical focus created a significant psychometric blind spot: an over-emphasis on dysphoria, affective lability, and psychological distress, accompanied by a structural neglect of somatic pain, physical fatigue, and their direct behavioral consequences on work performance.

In occupational health, physical discomfort—such as debilitating menstrual-related abdominal cramps, migraines, localized lower-back tension, and general autonomic exhaustion—frequently operates as the primary catalyst for lost workplace productivity. When working women experience severe somatic symptoms, the occupational fallout manifests through two primary avenues: absenteeism (complete absence from the workplace due to illness) and presenteeism (attending work while functionally compromised, resulting in diminished output, increased error rates, and cognitive deceleration). The instrument was engineered precisely to bridge this diagnostic disconnect, contextualizing symptom severity directly within the daily workflow of the modern female employee.

Practical and Organizational Applications

From an applied perspective, the tool functions across three distinct organizational and healthcare domains:

• Occupational Health Surveillance: Enterprise medical departments and occupational health nurses can administer the screening tool to track baseline health trends across employee cohorts, identifying individuals suffering from undiagnosed, debilitating premenstrual disorders who would benefit from medical referrals.
• Institutional Policy Formulation: By providing empirical, quantifiable data regarding the loss of functional capacity, the scale offers human resource leaders and corporate directors an objective basis for justifying organizational accommodations, such as flexible remote-work options, dynamic rest scheduling, and institutionalized menstrual leave policies.
• Clinical Ergonomics and Interventional Research: In clinical trials and organizational psychology research, the instrument serves as an evaluative outcome measure to gauge the efficacy of therapeutic interventions—such as ergonomic desk adaptations, lifestyle modifications, cognitive behavioral therapy, or low-dose oral contraceptive therapies—on occupational functioning.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct captured by this instrument is multidimensional premenstrual distress situated within an occupational ecosystem. Rooted in contemporary psychometrics, premenstrual distress is conceptualized not as an isolated psychiatric episode or an exclusively biological state, but as a systemic biopsychosocial disruption. This disruption manifests across four interlinked latent domains: psychological symptoms, generalized physical/somatic symptoms, localized abdominal pain, and occupational functional impairment.

1. Psychological and Affective Symptoms

This dimension encompasses the emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal distress triggered during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. Within workplace environments, affective dysregulation poses unique challenges to communication, executive cognitive processing, and social coordination. Specific facets measured within this domain include:

• Depressive Cognitions and Hopelessness: Transitory feelings of sadness, acute pessimism, worthlessness, and diminished self-efficacy that impair personal motivation and initiative on assigned tasks.
• Anxiety and Autonomic Tension: A subjective sense of being constantly on edge, inner agitation, and anticipatory dread regarding deadlines or daily occupational responsibilities.
• Affective Lability and Rejection Sensitivity: Rapid, unpredictable mood shifts, hypersensitivity to professional feedback, and an intensified sense of interpersonal vulnerability.
• Irritability, Anger, and Conflict Proneness: A low threshold for frustration, short temper, and heightened potential for interpersonal discord with supervisors, peers, or clients.
• Cognitive Dysfunction: Difficulties with concentration, executive working memory decrements, and processing speed deceleration, often colloquially described as "brain fog."

2. Systemic Physical and Autonomic Symptoms

Unlike conventional psychiatric scales that treat somatic complaints as secondary diagnostic criteria, this construct treats systemic physiological strain as a primary component of premenstrual impairment. Facets include profound lethargy and vital exhaustion, mastalgia (breast tenderness), systemic fluid retention, peripheral bloating, musculoskeletal aches, marked alterations in appetite or cravings, and disrupted sleep architectures (both insomnia and hypersomnia). Within an occupational setting, these somatic factors diminish physical endurance and sustained attention.

3. Abdominal and Localized Pain Symptoms

Localized pelvic and lower abdominal discomfort, often extending into the lumbosacral region, forms a distinct symptom cluster. In many working populations, dysmenorrheic and premenstrual cramping co-occur, generating acute, spasmodic, or dull persistent pain. This dimension directly influences posture, physical mobility, tolerance for prolonged sitting or standing, and overall workplace comfort.

4. Occupational Functional Impairment

The crowning dimension of the construct is the behavioral manifestation of premenstrual distress in professional roles. This domain translates the internal biological and psychological burden into behavioral and economic outcomes, directly assessing:

• Presenteeism: Reduced performance efficiency, elevated cognitive friction during routine task execution, and extended time requirements to complete typical duties.
• Absenteeism: Explicit loss of working days or partial-shift absences directly attributable to unmanageable symptom cascades.
• Interpersonal Friction: Strain, friction, or withdrawal within professional teams, degrading collaborative efforts and workplace climate.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Biopsychosocial Model of Premenstrual Distress

The foundational architecture of the Premenstrual Symptom Screening Tool for Working Women is anchored in George Engel's Biopsychosocial Model. This paradigm asserts that medical conditions and functional states cannot be understood solely as biological deviations, but rather emerge from the dynamic interplay among biological vulnerabilities, psychological traits, and social/environmental contexts. Applied to the occupational setting, premenstrual distress is viewed as an interactive product of:

• Biological Factors: Neuroendocrine sensitivity to normal cyclicity of ovarian steroids (estrogen and progesterone), differential gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-ergic receptor sensitivity, and peripheral prostaglandin production triggering uterine contractions and systemic inflammation.
• Psychological Factors: Individual cognitive appraisal styles, baseline vulnerability to affective disorders, psychological resilience, and somatic hypervigilance.
• Social/Occupational Factors: Workplace cultures, workload volume, occupational autonomy, shift structures, ergonomic constraints, and prevailing societal stigmas surrounding menstruation.

Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Theory

The scale integrates organizational psychology principles, specifically the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model formulated by Arnold Bakker and Evangelia Demerouti. Under the JD-R framework, occupational strain results from an imbalance between the physical, psychological, social, or organizational demands of an occupation and the personal or professional resources available to meet them. Premenstrual physical discomfort and affective depletion temporarily deplete an employee's personal energy reserves, effectively magnifying the strain imposed by standard job demands. When workplace resources (such as flexibility, ergonomic support, and psychological safety) are inadequate, this physiological depletion translates into acute presenteeism, emotional burnout, and eventual absenteeism.

7. Validity

The empirical validation of the instrument was conducted with rigorous psychometric standards, establishing multiple facets of validity across a nationwide epidemiological sample of 3,239 Japanese working women.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was demonstrated using a cross-validation design. The overall cohort was partitioned into two split-half samples via random Bernoulli sampling. The structural dimensionality established during the initial exploratory phase successfully cross-validated during subsequent confirmatory testing, showing that the latent factors explained the empirical covariances among items without excessive residual error.

Concurrent and Criterion-Related Validity

Criterion validity was established by benchmarking the instrument against the traditional Premenstrual Symptoms Screening Tool (PSST). The correlation coefficients confirmed that the instrument retains strong clinical sensitivity to conventional premenstrual disorder classifications, while capturing somatic and functional variance that traditional tools routinely overlook. Concurrent validity was further evaluated through comparative analysis with the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI). Given that chronic exposure to unmitigated workplace stressors and bodily distress accelerates emotional exhaustion, the scale demonstrated statistically significant, positive correlations with occupational burnout domains, supporting the premise that premenstrual distress contributes to composite workplace strain.

Predictive Validity for Occupational Disruption

The scale's predictive capacity was analyzed using multivariate logistic regression models adjusting for age, occupational categorization, baseline health status, and marital status. Elevated scores on the instrument robustly predicted self-reported sick leave and acute absenteeism. Women exhibiting top-quartile symptom burdens demonstrated significantly higher odds ratios (OR) for work absence compared to those in the lowest quartile, confirming the instrument's practical utility for predicting tangible economic and organizational disruptions.

8. Reliability

The reliability assessment of the instrument utilized modern psychometric parameters, moving beyond singular reliance on traditional metrics to include robust estimators of composite internal consistency:

Internal Consistency Metrics

• Cronbach's Alpha (α): Across the overall scale and its isolated subscales, Cronbach's alpha coefficients consistently exceeded the standard psychometric threshold of 0.80, with several subscales registering above 0.90, indicating high internal consistency among the items.
• McDonald's Omega (ω): Because Cronbach's alpha assumes tau-equivalence (equal factor loadings across all items) and can misestimate reliability when this assumption is violated, the research team calculated McDonald's omega coefficients. The omega values closely mirrored or exceeded the alpha metrics (confirming ω > 0.85 across subscales), providing strong evidence that the latent factors account for true score variance across items.
• Item-Total and Item-Rest Correlations: Individual item analysis revealed strong item-test and item-rest correlation coefficients, confirming that each item contributes meaningfully to the shared variance of its targeted subscale without introducing psychometric noise.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural validation of the scale was conducted using a rigorous cross-validation split-sample protocol designed to prevent capitalization on chance.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

The first randomly partitioned subsample (n = 1,597) was subjected to Exploratory Factor Analysis using Maximum Likelihood estimation. Because theoretical considerations posited that premenstrual symptom clusters are inherently correlated, an oblique rotation (Promax) was utilized. Items with factor loadings below 0.50 or substantial cross-loadings across secondary factors were systematically identified for refinement, resulting in clean, interpretable symptom clusters representing psychological distress, physical/somatic discomfort, localized pain, and functional work disruption.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

The factor structure derived from the EFA was subsequently tested upon the second, independent validation subsample (n = 1,642) using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Structural equation modeling yielded fit indices that comfortably met rigorous international psychometric standards:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): > 0.90 (indicating robust goodness-of-fit relative to the baseline null model).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): > 0.95 (confirming model parsimony and explanatory power).
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): < 0.08 (confirming low residual discrepancy between the hypothesized model and the observed covariance matrix).
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): Demonstrated values exceeding 0.50 across latent dimensions, confirming that the latent constructs capture greater variance from their indicator variables than can be attributed to measurement error.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Premenstrual Symptom Screening Tool for Working Women
• Test Type: Screening tool / Psychometric self-report assessment
• Target Population: Working women / female employees in the active labor force (validated among individuals aged 18 to 41 years)
• Item Count: 47 initial items across comprehensive symptom and occupational domains
• Format: 5-point Likert scale
• Response Scale:
  • 0 = No symptoms
  • 1 = Slight symptoms
  • 2 = Moderate symptoms
  • 3 = Severe symptoms
  • 4 = Very severe symptoms
• Administration Mode: Self-administered online questionnaire or clinical paper-and-pencil inventory
• Language: Originally validated in Japanese; applicable to cross-cultural workplace health studies via translation protocols
• Structural Subscales:
  • Section 1: Premenstrual Symptoms (Affective, Cognitive, Somatic, and Abdominal)
  • Section 2: Impact of Symptoms on Occupational and Daily Functioning
• Scoring and Diagnostic Rules: Symptom severity is computed across subscale composites. Classification of moderate-to-severe premenstrual distress or potential PMDD requires meeting explicit cut-off thresholds across both physical/psychological symptom severity indices and demonstrable workplace/daily impairment metrics.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Premenstrual Symptom Screening Tool for Working Women was developed and published in 2025 by Chihiro Takenoshita, Kyoko Nomura, and colleagues at Akita University, Japan. The initial validation study was published in the open-access journal BMC Women's Health under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

Academic researchers, non-profit institutions, and occupational health practitioners may utilize the general conceptual findings and framework for non-commercial research, institutional evaluation, and clinical practice provided appropriate citation and academic attribution are given to the original authors. However, full proprietary item sets and comprehensive operational deployment kits may remain under specific institutional management. Researchers interested in implementing the scale within enterprise wellness protocols or conducting formal cross-cultural translation and validation studies should contact the corresponding author, Dr. Kyoko Nomura ([email protected]), Department of Public Health, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine.

12. References

• American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
• Chen, F., Xue, Y., Tan, M. T., & Chen, P. (2015). Efficient statistical tests to compare Youden index: Accounting for contingency correlation. Statistics in Medicine, 34(9), 1560–1576. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6432
• Ekblom, Ö., Ekblom-Bak, E., Bolam, K. A., Ekblom, B., Schmidt, C., Söderberg, S., Bergström, G., & Börjesson, M. (2015). Concurrent and predictive validity of physical activity measurement items commonly used in clinical settings–data from SCAPIS pilot study. BMC Public Health, 15, 978. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2316-y
• Ferri, P., Guadi, M., Marcheselli, L., Balduzzi, S., Magnani, D., & Di Lorenzo, R. (2016). The impact of shift work on the psychological and physical health of nurses in a general hospital: A comparison between rotating night shifts and day shifts. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 9, 203–211. https://doi.org/10.2147/rmhp.S115326
• Freeman, E. W., Halberstadt, S. M., Rickels, K., Legler, J. M., Lin, H., & Sammel, M. D. (2011). Core symptoms that discriminate premenstrual syndrome. Journal of Women's Health, 20(1), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2010.2161
• Furuichi, W., Shimura, A., Miyama, H., Seki, T., Ono, K., Masuya, J., & Inoue, T. (2020). Effects of job stressors, stress response, and sleep disturbance on presenteeism in office workers. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 16, 1827–1833. https://doi.org/10.2147/ndt.S258508
• Goetzel, R. Z., Long, S. R., Ozminkowski, R. J., Hawkins, K., Wang, S., & Lynch, W. (2004). Health, absence, disability, and presenteeism cost estimates of certain physical and mental health conditions affecting U.S. employers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 46(4), 398–412. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.jom.0000121151.40413.bd
• Halbreich, U., Endicott, J., Schacht, S., & Nee, J. (1982). The diversity of premenstrual changes as reflected in the Premenstrual Assessment Form. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 65(1), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1982.tb00820.x
• Hantsoo, L., & Epperson, C. N. (2015). Premenstrual dysphoric disorder: Epidemiology and treatment. Current Psychiatry Reports, 17(11), 87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-015-0628-3
• Hardy, C., & Hardie, J. (2017). Exploring premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) in the work context: A qualitative study. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 38(4), 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/0167482x.2017.1286473
• Heinemann, L. A., Minh, T. D., Filonenko, A., & Uhl-Hochgräber, K. (2010). Explorative evaluation of the impact of severe premenstrual disorders on work absenteeism and productivity. Women's Health Issues, 20(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2009.09.005
• Heinemann, L. A., Minh, T. D., Heinemann, K., Lindemann, M., & Filonenko, A. (2012). Intercountry assessment of the impact of severe premenstrual disorders on work and daily activities. Health Care for Women International, 33(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2011.610530
• Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied logistic regression (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118548387
• Hwang, J. H., & Sung, M. H. (2016). Impacts of menstrual attitudes, premenstrual syndrome and stress on burnout among clinical nurses. Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing, 22(4), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2016.22.4.233
• Ikeda, Y., Egawa, M., Hiyoshi, K., Ueno, T., Ueda, K., Becker, C. B., Takahashi, Y., Nakayama, T., & Mandai, M. (2020). Development of a Japanese version of the Daily Record of Severity of Problems for diagnosing premenstrual syndrome. Women's Health Reports, 1(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1089/whr.2019.0004
• Kristensen, T. S., Borritz, M., Villadsen, E., & Christensen, K. B. (2005). The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory: A new tool for the assessment of burnout. Work & Stress, 19(3), 192–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500297720
• Miyaoka, Y., Akimoto, Y., Ueda, K., Ujiie, Y., Kametani, M., Uchiide, Y., & Horiguchi, J. (2011). Fulfillment of the premenstrual dysphoric disorder criteria confirmed using a self-rating questionnaire among Japanese women with depressive disorders. Biopsychosocial Medicine, 5, 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0759-5-5
• Mohebbi Dehnavi, Z., Jafarnejad, F., & Sadeghi Goghary, S. (2018). The effect of 8 weeks aerobic exercise on severity of physical symptoms of premenstrual syndrome: A clinical trial study. BMC Women's Health, 18(1), 80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-018-0565-5
• Moos, R. H. (1968). The development of a menstrual distress questionnaire. Psychosomatic Medicine, 30(6), 853–867. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-196811000-00006
• Naik, S. S., Nidhi, Y., Kumar, K., & Grover, S. (2023). Diagnostic validity of premenstrual dysphoric disorder: Revisited. Frontiers in Global Women's Health, 4, 1181583. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgwh.2023.1181583
• Namavar Jahromi, B., Pakmehr, S., & Hagh-Shenas, H. (2011). Work stress, premenstrual syndrome and dysphoric disorder: Are there any associations? Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal, 13(3), 199–202.
• O'Brien, P. M., Bäckström, T., Brown, C., Dennerstein, L., Endicott, J., Epperson, C. N., Eriksson, E., Freeman, E., Halbreich, U., Ismail, K. M., Panay, N., Pearlstein, T., Rapkin, A., Reid, R., Schmidt, P., Steiner, M., Studd, J., & Yonkers, K. (2011). Towards a consensus on diagnostic criteria, measurement and trial design of the premenstrual disorders: The ISPMD Montreal consensus. Archives of Women's Mental Health, 14(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-010-0201-3
• Orçan, F. (2018). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Which one to use first? Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 9(4), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.394323
• Ota, Y., Nomura, K., Hirayama, J., Maeda, E., Komatsu, J., Nakamura, M., & Takenoshita, S. (2023). Relationship between somatic symptoms with menstruation and intention to leave work among university hospital nurses in Japan: A cross-sectional study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 96(1), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-022-01905-0
• Perumalswami, C. R., Takenoshita, S., Tanabe, A., Kanda, R., Hiraike, H., Okinaga, H., & Nomura, K. (2020). Workplace resources, mentorship, and burnout in early career physician-scientists: A cross sectional study in Japan. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 178. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02072-x
• Schoep, M. E., Adang, E. M. M., Maas, J. W. M., De Bie, B., Aarts, J. W. M., & Nieboer, T. E. (2019). Productivity loss due to menstruation-related symptoms: A nationwide cross-sectional survey among 32,748 women. BMJ Open, 9(6), e026186. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026186
• Steiner, M., Haskett, R. F., & Carroll, B. J. (1980). Premenstrual tension syndrome: The development of research diagnostic criteria and new rating scales. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 62(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1980.tb00605.x
• Steiner, M., Peer, M., Palova, E., Freeman, E. W., Macdougall, M., & Soares, C. N. (2011). The Premenstrual Symptoms Screening Tool revised for adolescents (PSST-A): Prevalence of severe PMS and premenstrual dysphoric disorder in adolescents. Archives of Women's Mental Health, 14(1), 77–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-010-0202-2
• Takeda, T., Imoto, Y., Nagasawa, H., Takeshita, A., & Shiina, M. (2016). Stress fracture and premenstrual syndrome in Japanese adolescent athletes: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 6(10), e013103. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013103
• Takeda, T., Yoshimi, K., Kai, S., & Inoue, F. (2024). The Japanese version of the Daily Record of Severity of Problems for premenstrual symptoms: Reliability and validity among the general Japanese population. International Journal of Women's Health, 16, 299–308. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S450300
• Takenoshita, C., Shimizu, K., Iida, M., Taka, F., Maeda, E., Jung, S., & Nomura, K. (2025). Premenstrual Symptom Screening Tool for Working Women. BMC Women's Health, 25, 4092. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-025-04092-5
• Tanaka, E., Momoeda, M., Osuga, Y., Rossi, B., Nomoto, K., Hayakawa, M., & Kokubo, K. (2013). Burden of menstrual symptoms in Japanese women: Results from a survey-based study. Journal of Medical Economics, 16(11), 1255–1266. https://doi.org/10.3111/13696998.2013.830974
• Uchibori, M., Eguchi, A., Ghaznavi, C., Tanoue, Y., Ueta, M., Sassa, M., & Nomura, K. (2023). Understanding factors related to healthcare avoidance for menstrual disorders and menopausal symptoms: A cross-sectional study among women in Japan. Preventive Medicine Reports, 36, 102467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102467
• Viladrich, C., Angulo-Brunet, A., & Doval, E. (2017). A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. Anales de Psicología, 33(3), 755–782. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401
• Wei, S., Tang, Y. Y., Wang, F., Wang, Y., & Geng, X. (2023). Editorial: Neural circuits and neuroendocrine mechanisms of depression and premenstrual dysphoric disorder: Towards precise targets for translational medicine and drug development, volume II. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1216689. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1216689
• Yonkers, K. A., O'Brien, P. M., & Eriksson, E. (2008). Premenstrual syndrome. The Lancet, 371(9619), 1200–1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60527-9

13. Items of the Scale