Dataset Information

Development and psychometric assessment of the public health emergency risk perception scale: Under the outbreak of COVID-19.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Correctly understanding and evaluating the level of public risk perception toward public health emergencies not only helps experts and decision-makers understand the public's preventative health behaviors to these emergencies but also enhances their risk information communication with the public. The aim of this study was to develop a risk perception scale for public health emergencies and test its validity and reliability during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Methods

Guided by the theoretical model of risk perception, an initial scale was generated through literature review, group meetings, resident interviews, and expert consultation. A pretest and item screening were then conducted to develop a formal risk perception scale for public health emergencies. Finally, the reliability and validity of the scale were validated through a questionnaire survey of 504 Chinese adults.

Results

The final scale had 9 items. The content validity index of the scale was 0.968, and the content validity index of individual items ranged from 0.83 to 1.00. Three common factors, dread risk perception, severe risk perception, and unknown risk perception, were extracted for exploratory factor analysis, and together they explained 66.26% of the variance in the score. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the model had a satisfactory fit, where ? ²/df = 1.384, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.989, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.028, root mean square residual (RMR) = 0.018, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.995, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.982, and non-normed fit index (NNFI) = 0.990. The correlations between dimensions ranged from 0.306 to 0.483 (P < 0.01). Cronbach's ? was 0.793 for the total scale and ranged between 0.687 and 0.801 for the individual dimensions. The split-half coefficient was 0.861 for the total scale and ranged from 0.727 to 0.856 for induvial dimensions. The test-retest coefficient was 0.846 for the total scale and ranged from 0.843 to 0.868 for induvial dimensions.

Conclusion

The developed scale for the risk perception of public health emergencies showed acceptable levels of reliability and validity, suggesting that it is suitable for evaluating residents' risk perception of public health emergencies.

SUBMITTER: Shen Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7831463 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and psychometric assessment of the public health emergency risk perception scale: Under the outbreak of COVID-19.

Shen Zhiying Z Zhong Zhuqing Z Xie Jianfei J Ding Siqing S Li Shougen S Li Chengyuan C

International journal of nursing sciences 20201230 1

<h4>Objective</h4>Correctly understanding and evaluating the level of public risk perception toward public health emergencies not only helps experts and decision-makers understand the public's preventative health behaviors to these emergencies but also enhances their risk information communication with the public. The aim of this study was to develop a risk perception scale for public health emergencies and test its validity and reliability during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic ...[more]

PMID: 33520340

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveAmid the COVID-19 pandemic, social stigma towards COVID-19 infection has become a major component of public discourse and social phenomena. As such, we aimed to develop and validate the COVID-19 Public Stigma Scale (COVID-PSS).Design and settingNational-based survey cross-sectional study during the lockdown in Thailand.ParticipantsWe invited the 4004 adult public to complete a set of measurement tools, including the COVID-PSS, global fear of COVID-19, perceived risk of COVID-19 infection, Bogardus Social Distance Scale, Pain Intensity Scale and Insomnia Severity Index.MethodsFactor structure dimensionality was constructed and reaffirmed with model fit by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and non-parametric item response theory (IRT) analysis. Psychometric properties for validity and reliability were tested. An anchor-based approach was performed for classifying the proper cut-off scores.ResultsAfter factor analysis, IRT analysis and test for model fit, we created the final 10-item COVID-PSS with a three-factor structure: stereotype, prejudice and fear. Face and content validity were established through the public and experts' perspectives. The COVID-PSS was significantly correlated (Spearman rank, 95% CI) with the global fear of COVID-19 (0.68, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.70), perceived risk of COVID-19 infection (0.79, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.80) and the Bogardus Social Distance Scale (0.50, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.53), indicating good convergent validity. The correlation statistics between the COVID-PSS and the Pain Intensity Scale and Insomnia Severity Index were <0.2, supporting the discriminant validity. The reliability of the COVID-PSS was satisfactory, with good internal consistency (Cronbach's α of 0.85, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.86) and test-retest reproducibility (intraclass correlation of 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.96). The proposed cut-off scores were as follows: no/minimal (≤18), moderate (19-25) and high (≥26) public stigma towards COVID-19 infection.ConclusionsThe COVID-PSS is practical and suitable for measuring stigma towards COVID-19 in a public health survey. However, cross-cultural adaptation may be needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared coronavirus disease (COVID-19) to be a pandemic. This posed challenges to many countries, prominent among which is communication with the public to gain their cooperation. Israel faces different challenges from other countries in its management of the COVID-19 crisis because it is in the midst of a deep constitutional crisis. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this paper was to examine the response of the Israeli public to the government's emergency instructions regarding the pandemic in terms of correlations between overall risk perception and crisis management; overall risk perception and economic threat perception; crisis management and compliance with behavioral guidelines; and crisis management and economic threat perception. We also made comparisons between crisis management and spokesperson credibility and between crisis management and the credibility of information sources. METHODS:The sample was established using an online survey that enabled rapid and effective distribution of an online questionnaire during the COVID-19 crisis. The self-selection online survey method of nonprobability sampling was used to recruit participants (N=1056) through social network posts asking the general public (aged ?18 years) to answer the survey. RESULTS:Participants aged ?65 years perceived higher personal risk compared to those aged 18-30 years (mean difference 0.33, 95% CI 0.04-0.61) and those aged 46-64 years (mean difference 0.38, 95% CI 0.12-0.64). Significant correlations were found between overall risk perception and attitudes toward crisis management (r=0.19, P<.001), overall risk perception and economic threat perception (r=0.22, P<.001), attitudes toward crisis management and compliance with behavioral guidelines (r=0.15, P<.001), and attitudes toward crisis management and economic threat perception (r=-0.15, P<.001). Participants who perceived that the prime minister was the most credible spokesperson evaluated the crisis management significantly higher than all other groups. The crisis management was evaluated significantly lower by participants who stated that infectious disease specialists were the most credible spokespersons. Participants for whom the Ministry of Health website was the most credible source of information evaluated the crisis management higher than all other groups. Participants for whom scientific articles were the most credible source of information evaluated the crisis management lower than those who perceived that the WHO/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention websites or Ministry of Health/hospital websites and health care workers were the most credible. CONCLUSIONS:The higher the public trust and evaluation of crisis management, the greater the compliance of the public with guidelines. It was also found that crisis management and information cannot be approached in the same way for the overall public. Furthermore, unlike other epidemics, the COVID-19 crisis has widespread economic and social consequences; therefore, it is impossible to focus only on health risks without communicating economic and social risks as well.

Dataset Information

Development and psychometric assessment of the public health emergency risk perception scale: Under the outbreak of COVID-19.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Development and psychometric assessment of the public health emergency risk perception scale: Under the outbreak of COVID-19.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets