工作场所中的人际关系对工作者而言非常重要，但职场中的某些人际交往过程却常给个体带来压力。人际压力过大时，不但影响个体的身心健康，也不利于企业组织的长远发展。因此，关注中国特有文化下的工作场所人际压力源变得十分必要。为了补充职场人际压力研究中测量工具的不足，本研究进行工作场所人际压力源量表的编制。

首先，以方便取样的方法，对不同性别、地区、年龄、行业和职业的24名工作者进行访谈。对访谈材料进行编码共识，得到50个题目的初始量表。使用50题量表对430名工作者进行初次施测，共回收有效数据404份，进行探索性因素分析并按结果删题。删题后内容经专家评审，确定了36题量表，同时加入频率选项。使用36题量表对1114名工作者进行第二次施测，共回收有效数据1048份，用以确定量表结构并检验信效度。

最终量表包含31题，分为5个维度，分别以相应的人际过程命名：权力压迫（10题）、关系维护与拓展（6题），工作协调（5题）、性与性别（5题）和关系获益（5题）。5个维度的总解释率为76.24%。验证性因素分析结果（χ2 /df=3.65, RMSEA=0.07, SRMR=0.03, CFI=0.94, TLI=0.93）显示5维度结构拟合结果较好，表明量表结构效度良好。总量表与各维度分别与效标《压力感知量表中国修订版》呈中等程度的相关关系（皮尔逊系数分别为0.49、0.45、0.40、0.52、0.38、0.40，p<0.01）。总量表与各维度的信度结果良好（内部一致性Cronbach ａ系数分别为0.98、0.96、0.92、0.92、0.93、0.91；总量表分半信度Spearman-Brown为0.92）。各项目区分度良好。运用此量表对我国工作群体人际压力源现状进行调查的结果显示，人际压力源各维度的得分存在显著的年龄、学历与工作年限差异。其中，30岁以下群体在人际压力源各维度的得分均显著高于其他年龄组；研究生以上学历群体在人际压力源各维度的得分均显著高于其他学历组，工作3年以内的群体在人际压力源各维度得分均显著高于其他工作年限组。

结论：研究编制出31题5维度的工作场所人际压力源量表。量表信效度良好，可以同时测量压力源带来的压力影响程度和压力源的发生频率。对工作人群被试的人际压力情况进行分析后发现：16%的被试正处于中等偏上水平的人际压力中；30岁以下、研究生以上学历以及工作3年内的工作者群体人际压力水平最高。

Interpersonal relationships in the workplace are very important for employees, but for many people, certain interpersonal processes in the workplace cause stress. When interpersonal stress is perceived too high, it not only affects the physical and mental health and work performance of individuals, but also harms the long-term development of enterprises. Furthermore, in the context of Chinese culture, office interpersonal relationship has a deeper meaning, and the yearning for interpersonal harmony also leads employees to make different interpersonal responses. Considering such background, paying attention to the interpersonal stress at workplace becomes very necessary and meaningful. Thus, this study developed effective assessment by following steps to fill the tool blank in this field.

This research firstly gained materials of interpersonal stressors by conducting depth-interviewing of 24 employees of different genders, ages, cities and all walks of life by convenience sampling. Following with coding and consensus, 50-item preliminary scale was developed. Using 50-item scale to have 430 employees firstly tested via internet, 404 valid data was collected. By conducting exploration factor analysis, several items were deleted. Then the scale was evaluated by experts in this field, and a 36-item scale was confirmed. Using 36-item scale to have 1114 employees secondly tested via internet, 1048 valid data was collected to confirm structure of the scale and to analyze reliability and validity.

Eventually a 31-item interpersonal stressor scale was developed. The structure of the scale contained 5 dimensions, respectively named after interpersonal processes: power oppression (10 items), relationship maintenance and development (6 items), work coordination (5 items), sex and gender related (5 items) and relationship benefits (5 items,), the total explanation rate is 76.24%. The fitting results of confirmatory factor analysis have met the standard (χ2 /df=3.65，RMSEA=0.07，SRMR=0.03，CFI=0.94，TLI=0.93), and each dimension showed a moderate correlation with the criterion scale, revised Chinese Perceived Stress Scale (Pearson's coefficient were 0.49、0.45、0.40、0.52、0.38、0.40 respectively, p<0.01). Reliability and validity have met the standard: Cronbach ａof internal consistency is 0.98 (0.96、0.92、0.92、0.93、0.91 of each dimension respectively), and Spearman-Brown of split reliability is 0.92. The degree of differentiation of each item is between 0.5 to 0.8. By using this scale to analyze the current situation of interpersonal stress of working sample, the results showed that, except for the gender dimension, the interpersonal stress of different groups in the workplace is significantly different : employees under the age of 30 had the highest scores of interpersonal stress; employees with a post-graduate degree or above scored the highest among all dimensions of interpersonal stress; the employees who has worked for less than 3 years maintained the highest stress level among all dimensions.