Is there evidence for factorial invariance of the COVID Stress Scales? an analysis of North American and cross-cultural populations.

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the mental health of more citizens globally than any previous modern viral outbreak. In response to the psychological challenges associated with COVID-19, the COVID Stress Scales (CSS) were developed to assess the presence and severity of COVID-related distress. The initial North American validation study of the CSS identified that the scale comprised five factors: danger and contamination fears, fear of socioeconomic consequences, xenophobia, checking and reassurance seeking, and traumatic stress symptoms. The CSS have since been validated across a multitude of international populations. However, findings support a five- and six-factor model. Methodological issues make interpreting most studies supporting a five-factor model challenging. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate the factor structure of the CSS using data from North American samples, to assess for potential factorial invariance, and compare these results to cross-cultural findings. Multiple confirmatory factor analyses (mCFA) were conducted across 28 different groups (e.g., age, ethnicity/race, sex) from two large independent North American samples from 2020 (n = 6827) and 2021 (n = 5787), assessing the fit indices of the five-, six-, and alternative-factor model of the CSS. The current results provide evidence for factorial invariance of the six-factor model of the CSS across different North American demographics and highlight potential challenges in interpreting the results of studies that have supported a five-factor model of the CSS.

Factor structure and factorial invariance of the PTSD checklist for DSM-5 in public safety personnel: Results from a large and diverse sample.

OBJECTIVE: Public safety personnel (PSP; e.g., correctional workers, firefighters, paramedics, and police officers) are frequently exposed to potentially psychologically traumatic events (PPTEs) and report posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) difficulties more frequently than the general population. The PTSD checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) is a commonly used measure to screen PSP for PTSD. A single previous study assessed PCL-5 factorial invariance among PSP but used a small homogenous sample. The current study evaluated factorial invariance with a large (n = 5,855) and diverse PSP sample. METHOD: Multigroup confirmatory factor analyses (mCFAs; n = 98) were conducted using six competing factor models of the PCL-5 across seven PSP sectors, five age groups, and two gender groups. RESULTS: The seven-factor hybrid model of PTSD (i.e., reexperiencing, avoidance, negative alterations in cognitions and mood, hyperarousal, intrusion, emotional numbing, dysphoria, dysphoric arousal, anxious arousal, anhedonia, negative affect) produced consistently superior fit across all sectors assessed and produced marginally better absolute values than the six-factor anhedonia model, supporting PCL-5 factorial invariance among PSP. CONCLUSIONS: The current study is the first to use a large and diverse PSP sample to assess PCL-5 factorial invariance. The results support the PCL-5 as invariant across PSP sectors, age groups, and men and women. Consistent with other studies, the seven-factor hybrid model of PTSD produced the best fit, followed closely by the six-factor anhedonia model. Future research could use structured clinical interviews to further investigate the factorial structure and invariance of PTSD symptoms among PSPs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

How does COVID stress vary across the anxiety-related disorders? Assessing factorial invariance and changes in COVID Stress Scale scores during the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: No studies have examined whether levels of COVID stress vary across anxiety-related disorders. Likewise, no studies have assessed structural invariance of the COVID Stress Scales (CSS) across clinical diagnoses. We sought to address these issues in the present study. Given the dynamic nature of pandemics, we also assessed whether COVID stress changed from the first to third wave in those with clinical diagnoses and those with no mental health conditions. METHOD: Data were collected during COVID-19 from two independent samples of adults assessed about a year apart (early-mid in 2020, N = 6854; and early-mid 2021, N = 5812) recruited from Canada and the United States through an online survey. Participants provided demographic information, indicated the presence of current (i.e., past-year) anxiety-related or mood disorder, and completed the CSS. RESULTS: The five CSS were reliable (internally consistent), and the five-factor structure was stable across samples. Scores tended to be highest in people with anxiety-related or mood disorders, particularly panic disorder. As expected, scores fluctuated over time, being higher during the early phases of the pandemic when threat was greatest and lower during the later phases, when vaccines were deployed and the COVID-19 threat was reduced. CONCLUSION: The findings add to the growing number of studies supporting the psychometric properties of the CSS. The results encourage further investigations into the utility of the scales, such as their ability to detect treatment-related changes in COVID-19-related distress. The scales also show promise for studies of future pandemics or outbreaks because the CSS can be modified, with minor wording changes, to assess distress associated with all kinds of disease outbreaks.