IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i16p9946-d886442.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applicability and Psychometric Comparison of the General-Population Viral Anxiety Rating Scales among Healthcare Workers in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Author

Listed:
  • Changnam Kim

    (Department of Psychiatry, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University of Medicine, Changwon 06351, Korea)

  • Oli Ahmed

    (Department of Psychology, University of Chittagong, Chattogram 4331, Bangladesh
    National Center for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra 2601, Australia)

  • Washington Allysson Dantas Silva

    (Department of Psychology, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, João Pessoa 58051-900, PB, Brazil)

  • C. Hyung Keun Park

    (Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul 05505, Korea)

  • Soyoung Yoo

    (Department of Convergence Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul 05505, Korea)

  • Seockhoon Chung

    (Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul 05505, Korea)

Abstract

We aimed to explore the reliability and validity of viral anxiety rating scales (developed for the general population) among healthcare workers. In addition, we compared the psychometric properties of rating scales in accordance with the Generalized Anxiety Scale-7 items (GAD-7) during this COVID-19 pandemic. The viral anxiety of 330 healthcare workers was measured with Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemics—9 items (SAVE-9), SAVE-6, Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS), Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S), and COVID-19 Anxiety Scale (CAS-7). Factor analyses, item response theory, and Rasch model analyses were conducted to confirm the construct validities of the scales and compare the psychometric properties of rating scales. The receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis examined the cutoff scores of rating scales in accordance with a mild degree of generalized anxiety. The SAVE-9, SAVE-6, CAS, FCV-19S, and CAS-7 scales showed good reliability of internal consistency among healthcare workers. Their construct validity and convergent validity of each scale were similarly good. Furthermore, in comparing the psychometric properties of rating scales, we observed that the CAS scale was the most discriminating and difficult among the scales. The CAS and FCV-19S provided more information and were more efficient than the SAVE-9, SAVE-6, and CAS-7 scales when they were used to measure healthcare workers’ viral anxiety. Viral anxiety rating scales can be applied to healthcare workers with good reliability and validity.

Suggested Citation

  • Changnam Kim & Oli Ahmed & Washington Allysson Dantas Silva & C. Hyung Keun Park & Soyoung Yoo & Seockhoon Chung, 2022. "Applicability and Psychometric Comparison of the General-Population Viral Anxiety Rating Scales among Healthcare Workers in the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-13, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:16:p:9946-:d:886442
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/16/9946/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/16/9946/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeong-Won Han & Junhee Park & Hanna Lee, 2021. "Validity and Reliability of the Korean Version of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-10, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pilar Cárdenas Soriano & Carmen Rodriguez-Blazquez & Maria João Forjaz & Alba Ayala & Fermina Rojo-Perez & Gloria Fernandez-Mayoralas & Maria-Angeles Molina-Martinez & Carmen Perez de Arenaza Escriban, 2022. "Validation of the Spanish Version of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) in Long-Term Care Settings," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-14, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:16:p:9946-:d:886442. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.