Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Secondary traumatic stress (STS) is a clinically significant consequence of indirect exposure to trauma among healthcare professionals; however, a culturally validated measure for healthcare professionals has been lacking in South Korea. This study developed and evaluated the psychometric properties of a Korean version of the 17-item Secondary Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS). The instrument was translated and culturally adapted through forward–back-translation and expert content review and administered to 300 healthcare professionals indirectly exposed to work-related trauma. The sample was randomly divided into two independent subsamples (n = 150 each) for exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA, respectively). Internal consistency, structural validity, and criterion-related validity against the Impactof Event Scale–Revised (IES-R) were also examined. The Korean STSS demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.95). EFA yielded a 14-item, two-factor structure—sensory-reactive and cognitive-avoidance symptoms—explaining 67.08% of the variance after removing three weakly loading items, and, in CFA, this two-factor model was the best-performing of the three models compared (one-factor, two-factor, and original three-factor), although none of the models showed fully satisfactory fit (comparative fit index = 0.91, Tucker–Lewis index = 0.89, root mean square error of approximation = 0.11). Criterion-related validity was supported by a strong correlation with the IES-R (r = 0.89, 95% CI [0.86, 0.91]), whereas evidence for discriminant validity was limited: the scale correlated weakly and negatively with perceived social support (r = −0.25) but strongly with general psychological distress (r = 0.81). The Korean STSS shows promising initial psychometric properties among Korean healthcare professionals; however, these findings need to be confirmed in larger and more diverse samples before the instrument can be recommended for routine screening.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nam et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: