Tan Yuxin, Lin Xiuyun, Chen Hui, Xu Min, Tang Yingying, Gao Pengfei, Ren Wei, Zhang Di
Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2023 Jul 31;16:2883-2895. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S415240. eCollection 2023.
During emergencies, individuals and communities often react in a variety of ways, including panic response. However, the study of panic response is limited due to narrow assessment tools that measure only one or two dimensions of human response (eg, physiology, cognition, emotion, and behavior). To address this limitation and to explore the risk and protective factors of panic response during the global spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), the current study developed and evaluated the (PRS).
Four samples were recruited for the following purposes: interview analysis (n = 26); item analysis and exploratory factor analysis (n = 604); confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis (n = 603); and retest reliability, validity analysis, and regression analysis (n = 349).
The PRS consists of 21 items with four subscales: Physical Discomfort, Anxious Fluster, Sensitive Depression, and Excessive Prevention. Each of these subscales demonstrated good internal consistency ( 0.73), test-retest reliability ( > 0.77), criterion validity ( = 0.69, < 0.01), and convergent validity ( = 0.31-0.65, < 0.01). Regression analysis revealed significant predicting effects of COVID-19 knowledge and neuroticism on panic response. Additionally, cognitive reappraisal moderated the association between neuroticism and panic response.
Following a traumatic event, the PRS offers a potential tool for identifying individuals in need of mental health services. Moreover, during the COVID-19 pandemic, knowledge and neuroticism served as risk factors for heightened panic response, while cognitive reappraisal served as a protective factor for coping with panic response.
在紧急情况下，个人和社区常常会有各种反应，包括恐慌反应。然而，由于评估工具狭窄，仅测量人类反应的一两个维度（如生理、认知、情绪和行为），对恐慌反应的研究受到限制。为解决这一局限性，并探索2019年冠状病毒病（COVID-19）全球传播期间恐慌反应的风险和保护因素，本研究开发并评估了恐慌反应量表（PRS）。
招募了四个样本用于以下目的：访谈分析（n = 26）；项目分析和探索性因素分析（n = 604）；验证性因素分析和信度分析（n = 603）；以及重测信度、效度分析和回归分析（n = 349）。
PRS由21个项目组成，有四个子量表：身体不适、焦虑慌乱、敏感抑郁和过度预防。这些子量表各自都表现出良好的内部一致性（> 0.73）、重测信度（> 0.77）、效标效度（= 0.69，< 0.01）和聚合效度（= 0.31 - 0.65，< 0.01）。回归分析显示，COVID - 19知识和神经质对恐慌反应有显著的预测作用。此外，认知重评调节了神经质与恐慌反应之间的关联。
在经历创伤性事件后，PRS为识别需要心理健康服务的个体提供了一种潜在工具。此外，在COVID - 19大流行期间，知识和神经质是恐慌反应加剧的风险因素，而认知重评是应对恐慌反应的保护因素。
