| ProQoL 5a (Stamm, 2009, 2010) |
Measures compassion satisfaction and compassion
fatigue. 30 Items, three subscales with 10 items each: (a)
compassion satisfaction, (b) burnout, and (c)
secondary traumatic stress Example items: (a) “I get satisfaction from being
able to [help] people,” (b) “I feel worn out
because of my work as a [helper],” and (c) “I feel
depressed because of the traumatic experiences of
the people I [help]”
|
Developed over many revisions beginning with the
CFST (Figley,
1995) and CSFT (plus revised versions;
Figley & Stamm,
1996; Stamm,
2002); subsequently renamed ProQoL (Stamm, 2005) Initial CFST item development and some aspects of
validation and refinement are unclear (e.g., the
steps taken to revise from one ProQoL version to
the next)
|
Stamm (2010)
reports some psychometrics for the ProQoL-5, but
the sample size and sample characteristics are
unclear Internal consistency for the three subscales is
good to very good (Stamm,
2010) While Stamm (2010)
suggests the subscales are distinct, some research
suggests three-factor structure not supported,
calling into question construct validity (see text
for details)
|
| STSS (Bride et al., 2004) |
Measures intrusion, avoidance, and arousal
symptoms related to indirect exposure to trauma
through clients 17 Items, three subscales: (a) intrusion (five
items), (b) avoidance (seven items), and arousal
(five items) Example items: (a) “Reminders of my work with
clients upset me,” (b) “I wanted to avoid working
with some clients,” and (c) “I felt jumpy”
|
Initial item pool developed based on DSM-IV
criteria for PTSD and reviewed for content
validity by five experts Items piloted by two samples and refined based on
results of CFA, reliability statistics, content
validity, readability, clarity, and so on
|
Mail-in survey completed by 287 social
workers Internal consistency for subscales and tool
overall is good–excellent. Convergent validity indicated through
correlations with trauma case load and
depression/anxiety symptoms; discriminant validity
shown through lack of correlations with unrelated
factors CFA supported three-factor structure Some aspects of its validity have been criticized
(see text for details)
|
