Stress-Related Growth Scale (SRGS)

Abstract

The Stress-Related Growth Scale (SRGS), developed by Crystal L. Park, Lawrence H. Cohen, and Rebecca L. Murch in 1996, is a premier psychometric instrument designed to quantify positive psychological, social, emotional, and cognitive changes reported by individuals following the experience of stressful, adverse, or traumatic life events. Grounded within cognitive appraisal, coping theory, and the emerging paradigm of positive psychology, the SRGS captures the transformative processes through which individuals derive subjective benefits, personal strengthening, philosophical restructuring, and relational deepening from adversity. The full instrument comprises 50 self-report items rated on a 3-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 1 = somewhat, 2 = a great deal), yielding a total score that reflects global stress-related growth, alongside a validated 15-item short form (SRGS-S). Although originally operationalized as a unidimensional measurement tool, subsequent psychometric investigations have elucidated multidimensional structures capturing domains such as personal resources, interpersonal relationships, philosophy of life, and coping efficacy. Psychometric evaluations across diverse community, collegiate, clinical, and disaster-exposed populations demonstrate exceptional internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients regularly exceeding .94 for the full scale and .80 to .88 for the abbreviated version. Construct validity is supported by robust positive associations with adaptive coping mechanisms (including active coping, positive reinterpretation, and seeking social support), dispositional optimism, meaning-making processes, and existential well-being, while maintaining discriminant validity against social desirability and acute psychological distress. This article delivers an exhaustive academic review of the SRGS, delineating its historical development, theoretical foundations, psychometric architecture, factor analytic controversies, scoring procedures, clinical utility, and the full authentic instrument.

Keywords

Stress-Related Growth Scale, SRGS, post-traumatic growth, benefit finding, cognitive appraisal, stress and coping, positive psychology, meaning-making, trauma recovery, psychometrics.

Authors

The Stress-Related Growth Scale was formulated and empirically validated by a team of prominent clinical and personality psychology researchers:

• Crystal L. Park, Ph.D.: Professor of Psychological Sciences at the University of Connecticut. Dr. Park is an internationally recognized scholar in the fields of stress, trauma, coping, meaning-making systems, and the psychology of religion and spirituality. Her pioneering empirical work on the meaning-making model and health psychology has provided fundamental frameworks for understanding how individuals navigate existential crises and severe medical illnesses.
• Lawrence H. Cohen, Ph.D.: Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of Delaware. Dr. Cohen has made extensive contributions to clinical psychology, specializing in life stress assessment, cognitive vulnerability to depression, coping strategies, and psychological resilience across the lifespan.
• Rebecca L. Murch, M.A.: Clinical researcher affiliated with the University of Delaware who collaborated extensively on the initial conceptualization, item pool generation, and psychometric validation of the instrument during its foundational trials.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Stress-Related Growth Scale (SRGS) is to provide an empirical, standardized, and theoretically grounded measurement tool capable of assessing perceived positive outcomes and personal growth resulting from coping with highly stressful life challenges. For several decades, clinical psychology, psychiatry, and traumatology operated almost exclusively within a pathogenic paradigm. Research traditionally focused on the deleterious sequelae of acute and chronic stressors, quantifying symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety, functional impairment, and neurobiological dysregulation. While vital for diagnosis and symptom reduction, this deficit-oriented model neglected a profound clinical phenomenon: many individuals undergoing severe adversity report substantial, enduring, and transformative positive personal transformations.

The SRGS was designed to bridge this critical empirical divide by systematically capturing the multidimensional spectrum of stress-related growth. Rather than viewing growth as the mere absence of psychopathology or a simple return to pre-trauma homeostatic baseline (frequently defined as psychological resilience), the scale explicitly measures transformative shifts that transcend baseline functioning. It assesses how navigating severe life disruptions can prompt enhancements in self-efficacy, interpersonal intimacy, prosocial orientation, life valuation, and spiritual or existential maturity.

In research contexts, the SRGS serves as an essential measurement vehicle for longitudinal, cross-sectional, and experimental investigations examining the antecedents, mediators, and consequences of the coping process. It enables researchers to answer fundamental questions: What personality traits (such as openness to experience, optimism, or hardiness) foster benefit finding? What specific cognitive appraisal mechanisms facilitate positive growth? How do distinct coping strategies—such as cognitive reframing, emotional processing, and instrumental support seeking—differentially predict growth trajectories? Furthermore, the scale allows investigators to explore the nuanced, non-linear relationships between psychological distress and positive growth, demonstrating that growth and distress frequently co-occur rather than functioning as mutually exclusive polarities.

In clinical and health psychology domains, the SRGS functions as a therapeutic assessment instrument across diverse populations, including individuals recovering from life-threatening medical diagnoses (such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, and HIV/AIDS), survivors of natural and technological disasters, military veterans, individuals mourning traumatic bereavements, and people coping with significant relationship dissolutions or socioeconomic catastrophes. Clinicians utilize the scale to identify emergent psychological resources, facilitate meaning-making interventions, validate the patient’s lived experience of struggle, and assist clients in integrating traumatic experiences into a revised, highly adaptive narrative identity.

Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the SRGS is stress-related growth (SRG), defined as the subjective experience of positive psychological, social, cognitive, and philosophical changes that occur as a direct consequence of struggling with stressful life events. Although conceptually adjacent to constructs such as post-traumatic growth (PTG), benefit finding, and thriving, stress-related growth possesses distinctive theoretical parameters. While PTG typically assumes an event of catastrophic, seismic intensity that completely demolishes fundamental cognitive schemas, stress-related growth encompasses a broader spectrum of stressors, acknowledging that moderate, normative, developmental, and chronic life challenges can likewise catalyze significant psychological development.

The construct of stress-related growth operationalized within the SRGS spans several core thematic dimensions:

1. Enhancements in Intrapersonal Resources and Self-Perception

Trauma and severe stress frequently force individuals to confront intense vulnerability. When individuals navigate these challenges successfully, their fundamental perceptions of self-efficacy, emotional fortitude, and inner strength often undergo profound positive revision. Within the SRGS, this dimension manifests in realizations that one is substantially stronger and more capable than previously recognized (e.g., Item 3: “I learned that I was stronger than I thought I was”; Item 36: “I learned to be a more confident person”). It entails increased self-acceptance, recognizing and embracing personal limitations without self-condemnation (e.g., Item 30: “I learned to accept myself as less than perfect”), developing autonomous decision-making capacities, and asserting personal rights within social systems.

2. Interpersonal Deepening and Prosocial Orientation

Severe life adversity has a powerful capacity to alter relational dynamics. The SRGS measures profound shifts in social functioning, characterized by increased relational empathy, altruism, and interpersonal openness. Rather than leading exclusively to social withdrawal or mistrust, adversity can reveal the mutual interdependence of human relationships. The scale captures enhanced prosocial actions, such as learning to reach out and assist others facing hardship (e.g., Item 35: “I learned how to reach out and help others”), cultivating active listening and open communication, and recognizing that one possesses meaningful contributions to offer to social networks. Concurrently, it reflects an increased capacity for relational vulnerability, allowing individuals to recognize their reliance on external support systems and acknowledge that asking for help is an adaptive behavior rather than a personal deficiency (e.g., Item 44: “I learned that it’s okay to ask others for help”).

3. Philosophical, Existential, and Spiritual Restructuring

Stressful encounters routinely shatter an individual’s implicit cognitive assumptions regarding fairness, predictability, control, and personal invulnerability. Resolving the resulting existential crisis necessitates a comprehensive restructuring of the individual’s global belief system. The SRGS comprehensively evaluates shifts in existential orientation, including cultivating a present-moment temporal perspective (e.g., Item 17: “I learned to live for today, because you never know what will happen tomorrow”), developing deep appreciation for daily experiences without taking health or material circumstances for granted, reprioritizing personal values and life goals, and constructing meaning from suffering. For religious and spiritually oriented individuals, this domain captures the strengthening or deepening of faith, trust in the divine, and an integrated theological framework for comprehending why suffering occurs within the human condition.

4. Affective Regulation and Problem-Solving Coping Competencies

A crucial and distinctive feature of the SRGS construct is its emphasis on acquired coping competencies and emotional self-regulation. Stress-related growth is not conceptualized merely as an abstract philosophical reorientation; it reflects tangible, behavioral, and self-regulatory competencies learned in the crucible of adversity. The instrument assesses reductions in emotional reactivity, learning not to magnify minor everyday hassles (e.g., Item 15: “I learned not to let hassles bother me the way they used to”; Item 45: “I learned that most of what used to upset me were little things that aren’t worth getting upset about”), cultivating equanimity and calmness under pressure, managing uncertainty with cognitive flexibility, and committing to persistent, active problem-solving rather than avoidant resignation.

Theoretical Framework

The Stress-Related Growth Scale is firmly anchored within modern psychological theories of stress, cognitive appraisal, and constructivist meaning-making. The instrument’s foundational structure draws primarily upon the transactional model of stress and coping formulated by Richard S. Lazarus and Susan Folkman (1984), integrated with cognitive schema theories of trauma and existential psychology.

The Transactional Model of Stress and Coping

Lazarus and Folkman posited that psychological stress is neither an objective environmental stimulus nor a purely subjective internal state, but rather a dynamic transaction between the individual and the environment. When confronted with an environmental encounter, an individual engages in primary appraisal (evaluating whether the event represents a threat, harm/loss, or challenge) and secondary appraisal (evaluating personal and social coping resources available to manage the demand). Coping comprises the shifting cognitive and behavioral efforts deployed to manage external and internal demands appraised as taxing or exceeding personal resources.

Park, Cohen, and Murch (1996) expanded this framework by proposing that the outcome of coping transactions is not restricted to distress mitigation or pathology prevention. Instead, the coping process itself serves as an active learning mechanism. When existing coping mechanisms prove inadequate against severe stressors, individuals are compelled to cultivate novel coping strategies, access previously untapped internal reserves, seek external social alliances, and modify appraisal patterns. The successful execution of these complex coping efforts directly generates stress-related growth.

The Meaning-Making Model

A secondary fundamental theoretical pillar underpinning the SRGS is Park’s own Meaning-Making Model (Park & Folkman, 1997; Park, 2010). This model differentiates between two levels of cognitive meaning:

• Global Meaning: Encompasses an individual’s enduring, broad cognitive frameworks, fundamental core assumptions about the world (e.g., benevolence, justice, predictability), overarching life goals, and sense of purpose.
• Situational Meaning: Represents the specific meaning attributed to a particular stressful event, including the primary appraisal of its significance, personal implications, and causes.

When a severe life stressor occurs, it frequently creates a profound discrepancy between situational meaning (e.g., “I have developed a life-threatening illness”) and global meaning (e.g., “Good things happen to good people; my future is secure”). This cognitive dissonance generates intense distress. To resolve this discrepancy, the individual engages in meaning-making coping—cognitive and emotional processes aimed at either revising the appraisal of the event (assimilating the event into existing frameworks) or extensively modifying global meaning structures (accommodating schemas to incorporate the reality of the stressor). Stress-related growth represents the successful cognitive accommodation and integration of the event, culminating in a richer, more complex, and more resilient global meaning system.

Shattered Assumptions and Schema Reconstruction

The SRGS is also informed by Ronnie Janoff-Bulman’s (1992) shattered assumptions theory. Janoff-Bulman argued that traumatic life events shatter three fundamental assumptions that individuals hold: (1) the world is benevolent, (2) the world is meaningful and operates according to predictable rules, and (3) the self is worthy. Rebuilding these shattered schemas requires intensive cognitive processing, intrusive and deliberate rumination, and psychological reconstruction. The items of the SRGS directly reflect the rebuilt, post-crisis cognitive architecture: an appreciation for life that acknowledges fragility, enhanced empathy for others who suffer, and realistic self-worth grounded in demonstrated survival capacity rather than illusory invulnerability.

Validity

The Stress-Related Growth Scale has undergone rigorous empirical validation across diverse populations, establishing strong construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

In the seminal validation studies conducted by Park, Cohen, and Murch (1996) involving undergraduate cohorts confronting diverse personal stressors, construct validity was established through thorough exploratory factor analyses. The items were systematically generated based on open-ended interviews with individuals recounting positive outcomes following major negative life events. These items clustered around core positive psychological shifts without exhibiting confounding overlap with basic symptom inventories. Construct validity has been repeatedly reaffirmed across specialized populations, including combat veterans, adult survivors of pediatric cancer, disaster survivors, and primary caregivers of individuals with neurodegenerative diseases.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is evidenced by moderate to strong correlations between the SRGS and theoretically aligned psychological constructs:

• Adaptive Coping Mechanisms: SRGS scores demonstrate robust positive correlations with the COPE Inventory subscales, particularly active coping ($r = .35$ to $.45$), positive reinterpretation and growth ($r = .48$ to $.60$), planning ($r = .30$ to $.42$), and the use of instrumental and emotional social support ($r = .32$ to $.48$).
• Dispositional Optimism: Moderate positive associations are consistently documented with the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R) ($r = .25$ to $.38$), indicating that while optimistic individuals are more predisposed to perceive growth, the SRGS measures an experiential outcome distinct from innate positive affectivity.
• Meaning in Life: Positive associations are established with the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ), specifically the Presence of Meaning subscale ($r = .35$ to $.50$), confirming that derived growth directly enriches global existential coherence.
• Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI): In comparative psychometric studies evaluating concurrent validity across growth metrics, the SRGS correlates strongly with Tedeschi and Calhoun’s PTGI ($r = .72$ to $.84$), confirming that both instruments tap the overarching domain of adversity-activated growth while maintaining subtle dimensional distinctions.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated across multiple psychometric trials:

• Social Desirability: Correlations between the SRGS and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale have consistently been low and non-significant ($r = .04$ to $.12$), confirming that participant self-reports on the SRGS reflect genuine perceived transformations rather than a mere response bias to present oneself favorably.
• Symptomatic Distress and PTSD: The SRGS demonstrates orthogonal or modest, complex relationships with measures of psychological distress, such as the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R). Empirical correlations typically range from near-zero to modest positive associations ($r = -.08$ to $.22$). This statistical independence confirms that stress-related growth does not represent the mere absence of suffering; rather, growth and distress frequently operate as independent, concurrent dimensions during trauma recovery.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Longitudinal investigations demonstrate that higher baseline and intermediate SRGS scores prospectively predict long-term psychological adjustment. For instance, in longitudinal studies of college students facing chronic stressors (Park & Cohen, 2004), initial growth perceptions predicted subsequent increases in positive affect, enhanced life satisfaction, and pro-social behaviors months later, controlling for initial distress levels. Similarly, among medical cohorts, higher SRGS scores predicted enhanced physical functioning, adherence to treatment regimens, and lower neuroendocrine stress markers over time.

Reliability

The Stress-Related Growth Scale exhibits exceptional reliability characteristics, demonstrated across both internal consistency and temporal stability evaluations.

Internal Consistency

Across numerous published psychometric investigations, the 50-item SRGS has demonstrated outstanding internal consistency. In the foundational validation studies by Park, Cohen, and Murch (1996), the overall scale achieved a Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) of .94 among college students reporting on their most stressful life event within the preceding year. Subsequent studies evaluating clinical, medical, and community samples have reported alpha coefficients consistently ranging between .93 and .96:

• Armeli, Gunthert, and Cohen (2001): Reported an overall alpha of .95 in an investigation of stressor appraisals, coping mechanisms, and post-event growth.
• Park and Cohen (2004): Obtained an alpha coefficient of .94 in a prospective longitudinal study examining psychological correlates and adjustment outcomes.
• Roesch, Rowley, and Vaughn (2004): In an extensive structural evaluation across multi-ethnic samples, internal consistency reliability for the full instrument was observed at $lpha = .95$.
• Short Form (SRGS-S): The 15-item short form developed by Park and colleagues similarly demonstrates robust internal consistency, with alpha coefficients consistently observed between .82 and .88 across diverse populations, making it an efficient, reliable tool when survey length is constrained.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

The temporal stability of the SRGS reflects both the enduring nature of cognitive restructuring and the ongoing evolution of the meaning-making process over time:

• Short-Term Stability (2 to 4 Weeks): In initial stability trials conducted by Park et al. (1996), test-retest reliability across a two-week interval was $r = .81$, and across a three-week interval was $r = .78$, indicating robust short-term measurement stability.
• Medium- to Long-Term Stability (6 Months to 1 Year): Across extended intervals, stability coefficients typically range from $r = .55$ to $r = .68$. This moderate stability is theoretically congruent with the nature of stress-related growth: as time elapses, individuals continue to reinterpret their traumatic experiences, assimilate new life events, and adapt their personal narratives, leading to gradual, authentic shifts in reported growth.

Factor Analysis

The latent structural architecture of the Stress-Related Growth Scale has served as a central subject of psychometric inquiry and analytical debate in the stress and coping literature.

The Original Unidimensional Solution

In the original scale construction by Park, Cohen, and Murch (1996), principal components analysis (PCA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were performed on the 50 items. The initial scree plot examination revealed a massive first eigenvalue accounting for a dominant percentage of the total variance, with substantially smaller subsequent eigenvalues. Although multiple sub-components could be clinically conceptualized, Park and colleagues concluded that the items possessed high intercorrelations and loaded strongly onto a single, dominant common factor. Consequently, they recommended utilizing the SRGS primarily as a unidimensional composite score representing global stress-related growth.

Armeli et al.’s Multidimensional Models

Subsequent psychometric scrutiny challenged the unidimensional assumption. Armeli, Gunthert, and Cohen (2001) conducted detailed exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses on the SRGS to investigate whether multidimensional representations offered superior theoretical and empirical utility. Their investigations illuminated two viable structural alternatives:

1. Seven-Factor Model: A granular structure identifying seven distinct factors: (1) Openness to New Experiences/Personal Strength, (2) Relationships with Others, (3) Empathy/Prosocial Orientation, (4) Faith/Religion, (5) Acceptance of Limitations, (6) Personal Responsibility/Self-Direction, and (7) Life Perspective/Appreciation.
2. Three-Factor Higher-Order Model: A parsimonious three-factor solution comprising: (1) Personal Growth (inner strength, self-reliance, coping efficacy), (2) Interpersonal Growth (deeper social bonds, altruism, empathy), and (3) Philosophical/Spiritual Growth (faith, life appreciation, priority realignment).

Roesch, Rowley, and Vaughn’s Confirmatory Analysis (2004)

The definitive structural comparison of the SRGS was executed by Roesch, Rowley, and Vaughn (2004) in their landmark study, “On the Dimensionality of the Stress-Related Growth Scale: One, Three, or Seven Factors?” published in the Journal of Personality Assessment. Utilizing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the authors systematically evaluated the one-factor, three-factor, and seven-factor models across multiple goodness-of-fit indices:

• One-Factor Model: Displayed inadequate fit to the empirical data: $\chi^2/df > 3.0$, Comparative Fit Index ($ ext{CFI}$) = .76, Tucker-Lewis Index ($ ext{TLI}$) = .75, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ($ ext{RMSEA}$) = .082. This confirmed that treating the 50 items as strictly unidimensional obscures distinct structural variance.
• Three-Factor Model: Showed improved fit over the unidimensional model: $\text{CFI} = .83$, $ ext{TLI} = .82$,$ ext{RMSEA} = .069$, supporting its clinical utility as a broad three-domain composite.
• Seven-Factor Model: Achieved superior psychometric fit compared to all competing models: $\text{CFI} = .90$, $ ext{TLI} = .89$,$ ext{RMSEA} = .054$, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual ($ ext{SRMR}$) = .058. Item factor loadings across the seven designated dimensions were robust, predominantly ranging from .50 to .82.

Consequently, psychometric consensus supports the application of the SRGS either as an overarching global metric (when general benefit-finding is the primary variable of interest) or as a multidimensional profile (utilizing the 3-factor or 7-factor scoring frameworks) when researchers seek to investigate differential pathways between specific coping strategies and distinct domains of psychological transformation.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Stress-Related Growth Scale (SRGS)
• Abbreviated Forms: SRGS (Full 50-Item Scale); SRGS-S (15-Item Short Form)
• Instrument Type: Standardized Self-Report Psychometric Questionnaire / Assessment Inventory
• Construct Assessed: Perceived stress-related growth, positive cognitive-behavioral transformations, and meaning-making following adversity
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 16+) who have experienced significant life stressors, medical trauma, bereavement, or chronic environmental demands
• Item Count: 50 items on the full version; 15 items on the validated short form (indicated by an asterisk [*])
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil self-administration, interactive computerized assessment, or clinical structured interview
• Completion Time: Approximately 10–15 minutes for the full 50-item scale; 3–5 minutes for the 15-item short form
• Response Format: 3-point Likert response scale:
  • 0 = Not at all
  • 1 = Somewhat
  • 2 = A great deal
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Full Scale Total Score: Calculated by summing the numerical ratings across all 50 items. Total scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores reflecting greater perceived stress-related growth.
  • Short Form (SRGS-S) Score: Calculated by summing the 15 designated short-form items (Items 7, 20, 21, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 46, and 49). Total scores range from 0 to 30.
  • Subscale Scoring (Armeli et al. 3-Factor Solution):
    • Personal Growth: Sum of items reflecting inner resilience, self-efficacy, autonomy, and coping competence.
    • Interpersonal Growth: Sum of items assessing social support, empathy, communication, and prosocial orientation.
    • Philosophical/Spiritual Growth: Sum of items measuring existential appreciation, purpose, life goals, and faith.
  • Item Inversion: All items are positively keyed; no reverse scoring is required.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Stress-Related Growth Scale was originally published in 1996 by Crystal L. Park, Lawrence H. Cohen, and Rebecca L. Murch in the Journal of Personality. The instrument was developed as an open-access empirical measurement tool for scientific and clinical applications.

Licensing and Academic Usage Permissions:

• Research and Educational Use: The SRGS is considered in the public domain for non-commercial academic research, clinical investigations, and educational training. Researchers and healthcare practitioners may utilize, reproduce, and administer the scale without payment of royalties, provided appropriate bibliographic attribution is accorded to the original authors (Park et al., 1996).
• Commercial Applications: Integration of the SRGS into proprietary commercial platforms, digital health applications for profit, or commercial test batteries typically requires formal permission from the copyright holder of the original publication (Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the Journal of Personality) or direct consultation with the primary author, Dr. Crystal L. Park.
• Scale Inquiries: Academic inquiries regarding original psychometric normative data and translations can be directed to Dr. Crystal L. Park at the Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut.

References

• Armeli, S., Gunthert, K. C., & Cohen, L. H. (2001). Stressor appraisals, coping, and post-event outcomes: The dimensionality and antecedents of stress-related growth. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20(3), 366–395. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.20.3.366.22304
• Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. Free Press.
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning analysis: An integrative review of meaning making and its clinical applications. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 66(3), 257–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20658
• Park, C. L., & Cohen, L. H. (2004). Stress-related growth: Predictors of occurrence and correlates with psychological adjustment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.2.195.31019
• Park, C. L., Cohen, L. H., & Murch, R. L. (1996). Assessment and prediction of stress-related growth. Journal of Personality, 64(1), 71–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00815.x
• Park, C. L., Cohen, L. H., & Murch, R. L. (2013). Stress-Related Growth Scale. In C. A. Simmons & P. Lehmann (Eds.), Tools for strengths-based assessment and evaluation (pp. 251–253). Springer Publishing Company.
• Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of General Psychology, 1(2), 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.2.115
• Roesch, S. C., Rowley, A. A., & Vaughn, A. A. (2004). On the dimensionality of the Stress-Related Growth Scale: One, three, or seven factors? Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(3), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8203_06
• Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.2490090305

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)