Lotzin Annett, Ketelsen Ronja, Krause Linda, Ozga Ann-Kathrin, Böttche Maria, Schäfer Ingo
Department of Psychology, MSH Medical School Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Health Psychol Behav Med. 2022 Aug 18;10(1):762-785. doi: 10.1080/21642850.2022.2112198. eCollection 2022.
This study assessed the validity and reliability of the Pandemic Coping Scale (PCS), a new brief measure of coping with pandemic-related stressors.
The PCS was administered to = 2316 German participants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was applied among random splits of the sample. Global goodness of fit ( , RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, TLI), local goodness of fit (factor loadings, communalities, factor reliability, discriminant validity) and additional test quality criteria (internal consistency, item discrimination and difficulty) were evaluated for a four-factor model vs. a four-factor model combined with a second-order general factor. Convergent and divergent validity were examined by Pearson correlations of the PCS subscales with the Brief-COPE subscales; criterion validity was evaluated by correlations with wellbeing (WHO-5), depressive (PHQ-9) and anxiety symptoms (GAD-2).
Exploratory factor analysis suggested a four-factor solution ('Healthy Lifestyle', 'Joyful Activities', 'Daily Structure', 'Prevention Adherence'). Confirmatory factor analysis showed a sufficient global fit for both specified models which did not differ in their fit to the data. Local goodness of fit indices showed moderate to large factor loadings and good factor reliabilities except for the subscale 'Prevention Adherence'. Internal consistencies were good for the PCS total scale ( = .83), the 'Healthy Lifestyle' ( = .79) and the 'Daily Structure' ( = .86) subscales, acceptable for 'Joyful Activities' ( = .60), and low for 'Prevention Adherence' ( = .52). The four subscales evidenced convergent and divergent validity with the Brief-COPE subscales. The subscales 'Healthy lifestyle', 'Joyful activities' and 'Daily structure' showed criterion validity with wellbeing, depressive and anxiety symptoms.
The PCS is a reliable and valid measure to assess pandemic-specific coping behavior in the domains of 'Healthy Lifestyle', 'Joyful Activities', and 'Daily Structure'. The PCS subscale 'Prevention Adherence' might be improved by adding items with varying item difficulties.
本研究评估了大流行应对量表（PCS）的有效性和可靠性，这是一种用于应对与大流行相关压力源的新的简短测量工具。
在新冠疫情期间，对2316名德国参与者施测了PCS。在样本的随机划分中应用了探索性和验证性因素分析。针对四因素模型与结合二阶一般因素的四因素模型评估了整体拟合优度（卡方、RMSEA、SRMR、CFI、TLI）、局部拟合优度（因素载荷、共同度、因素可靠性、区分效度）以及其他测试质量标准（内部一致性、项目区分度和难度）。通过PCS分量表与简短应对量表（Brief-COPE）分量表的皮尔逊相关性检验收敛效度和区分效度；通过与幸福感（WHO-5）、抑郁症状（PHQ-9）和焦虑症状（GAD-2）的相关性评估效标效度。
探索性因素分析表明存在四因素解决方案（“健康生活方式”、“愉悦活动”、“日常结构”、“预防坚持”）。验证性因素分析表明，两个指定模型的整体拟合度都足够，它们与数据的拟合度没有差异。局部拟合优度指标显示，除了“预防坚持”分量表外，因素载荷为中等至较大，因素可靠性良好。PCS总量表（α = 0.83）、“健康生活方式”（α = 0.79）和“日常结构”（α = 0.86）分量表的内部一致性良好；“愉悦活动”（α = 0.60）可以接受，“预防坚持”（α = 0.52）较低。四个分量表与Brief-COPE分量表证明了收敛效度和区分效度。“健康生活方式”、“愉悦活动”和“日常结构”分量表与幸福感、抑郁和焦虑症状显示了效标效度。
PCS是一种可靠且有效的测量工具，可用于评估“健康生活方式”、“愉悦活动”和“日常结构”领域中特定于大流行的应对行为。“预防坚持”PCS分量表可能需要通过添加具有不同项目难度的项目来改进。
