The pandemic coping scale - validity and reliability of a brief measure of coping during a pandemic.

This study assessed the validity and reliability of the Pandemic Coping Scale (PCS), a new brief measure of coping with pandemic-related stressors. Methods: The PCS was administered to N = 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 (χ 2, 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). Results: 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 (α = .83), the 'Healthy Lifestyle' (α = .79) and the 'Daily Structure' (α = .86) subscales, acceptable for 'Joyful Activities' (α = .60), and low for 'Prevention Adherence' (α = .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. Conclusions: 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.

The Pandemic Stressor Scale: factorial validity and reliability of a measure of stressors during a pandemic.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the factorial validity and reliability of the Pandemic Stressor Scale (PaSS), a new measure to assess the severity of distress for different stressors relevant during a pandemic or epidemic. METHODS: The PaSS was administered in N = 2760 German participants. Exploratory factor analysis was used to extract factors. The factor structure obtained in the German sample was examined in N = 1021 Austrian participants using confirmatory factor analysis. χ2, RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, TLI were assessed as global goodness of fit indices for two models (Model 1: nine-factor model; Model 2: nine-factor model combined with a second-order general factor). We additionally assessed factor loadings, communalities, factor reliability, discriminant validity as local fit indices. Internal consistency, item discrimination, and item difficulty were assessed as additional test quality criteria. RESULTS: The results of the exploratory factor analysis suggested a nine-factor solution with factor loadings accounting for 50.4% of the total variance (Factor 1 'Problems with Childcare', Factor 2 'Work-related Problems', Factor 3 'Restricted Face-to-Face Contact', Factor 4 'Burden of Infection ', Factor 5 'Crisis Management and Communication', Factor 6 'Difficult Housing Condition', Factor 7 'Fear of Infection', Factor 8 'Restricted Access to Resources', Factor 9 'Restricted Activity'). The confirmatory factor analysis showed a sufficient global fit for both tested models (Model 1: χ2 (369, N = 1021) = 1443.28, p < .001, RMSEA = .053, SRMR = .055, CFI = .919, TLI = .904; Model 2: χ2 (396, N = 1021) = 1948.51, p < .001, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = .074, CFI = .883, TLI = .871). The results of the chi-square difference test indicated a significantly better model-fit of Model 1 compared to Model 2 (∆χ2 (27, N = 1021) = 505.23, p < .001). Local goodness of fit indices were comparable for both tested models. We found good factor reliabilities for all factors and moderate to large factor loadings of the items as indicators. In Model 2, four first-order factors showed small factor loadings on the second-order general factor. CONCLUSION: The Pandemic Stressor Scale showed sufficient factorial validity for the nine measured domains of stressors during the current COVID-19 pandemic.