COVID-19 Bereavement in Ten Latin American Countries: Measurement Invariance of the Pandemic Grief Scale and Its Relation to Suicidal Ideation.

The present study aimed to evaluate the cross-cultural measurement invariance of the Pandemic Grief Scale (PGS) in ten Latin American countries. A total of 2,321 people who had lost a family member or other loved one due to COVID-19 participated, with a mean age of 34.22 years old (SD = 11.99). In addition to the PGS, a single item of suicidal ideation was applied. The unidimensional model of the PGS had adequate fit in most countries and good reliability estimates. There was evidence of measurement invariance by country and gender. Also, a one-point increase in the PGS was associated with an almost twofold increase in the odds of suicidal ideation. Scores greater than or equal to 4 on the PGS are proposed as a cut off to identify individuals with suicidal ideation. Strong evidence of the cross-cultural validity of the PGS is provided.

Network analysis of the relationships between conspiracy beliefs towards COVID-19 vaccine and symptoms of fear of COVID-19 in a sample of latin american countries.

The present study examined how conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines specifically relate to symptoms of fear of COVID-19 in a sample of four South American countries. A total of 1785 people from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru participated, responding to a sociodemographic survey, the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19 S) and the Vaccine Conspiracy Beliefs Scale-COVID-19 (VCBS-COVID-19). Network analysis identified the most important symptoms of fear and conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines (nodes) and the associations between them (edges). In addition, the robustness of the network of these indicators of centrality and the possible differences in the structure and connectivity of the networks between the four countries were evaluated. The results suggest that the nodes with the highest centrality were items 2 and 5 of the FCV-19 S and item 2 of the VCBS-COVID-19. Likewise, item 6 is the belief that most predicts conspiracy beliefs about vaccines against COVID-19; while item 6 was the symptom that most predicts fear of COVID-19. The findings strongly support cross-cultural similarities in the networks across the four countries rather than differences. Although it was expected that a higher presence of symptoms of fear of COVID-19 may lead people to compensate for their fear by believing in conspiratorial ideas about vaccines and, consequently, rejecting the COVID-19 vaccine, the results do not clearly show this relationship. This could lead other researchers to generate evidence to explain the differences between Latin American countries and countries in other contexts in terms of vaccination rates. This evidence could be useful to develop policies favoring vaccination against COVID-19 that are more contextualized to the Latin American region, characterized by social instability and economic recession during the pandemic.

Design and Cross-Cultural Invariance of the COVID-19 Vaccine Conspiracy Beliefs Scale (COVID-VCBS) in 13 Latin American Countries.

Aims: Over the past 2 years, the vaccine conspiracy beliefs construct has been used in a number of different studies. These publications have assessed the determinants and outcomes of vaccine conspiracy beliefs using, in some cases, pooled data from different countries, and compared the results across these contexts. However, studies often do not consider measurement invariance as a necessary requirement for comparative analyses. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the cross-cultural MI of the COVID-19 Vaccine Conspiracy Beliefs Scale (COVID-VCBS) in 12 Latin American countries. Methods: Confirmatory factor analysis, item response theory analysis and alignment method were applied to test measurement invariance in a large number of groups. Results: The COVID-VCBS showed robust psychometric properties and measurement invariance for both factor loadings and crosstabs. Also, a higher level of acceptance of conspiracy beliefs about vaccines is necessary to respond to higher response categories. Similarly, greater acceptance of conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines was related to a lower intention to be vaccinated. Conclusion: The results allow for improved understanding of conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines in the countries assessed; furthermore, they provide researchers and practitioners with an invariant measure that they can use in cross-cultural studies in Latin America. However, further studies are needed to test invariance in other countries, with the goal of developing a truly international measure of conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines.

Cross-cultural validation of the new version of the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale in twelve Latin American countries.

The Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS) was recently developed to assess dysfunctional anxiety related to COVID-19. Although different studies reported that the CAS is psychometrically sound, it is unclear whether it is invariant across countries. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the measurement invariance of the CAS in twelve Latin American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay). A total of 5196 people participated, with a mean age of 34.06 (SD = 26.54). Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine the measurement invariance of the CAS across countries and gender. Additionally, the graded response model (GRM) was used to provide a global representation of the representativeness of the scale with respect to the COVID-19 dysfunctional anxiety construct. The unidimensional structure of the five-item CAS was not confirmed in all countries. Therefore, it was suggested that a four-item model of the CAS (CAS-4) provides a better fit across the twelve countries and reliable scores. Multigroup CFA showed that the CAS-4 exhibits scalar invariance across all twelve countries and all genders. In addition, the CAS-4 items are more informative at average and high levels of COVID-19 dysfunctional anxiety than at lower levels. According to the results, the CAS-4 is an instrument with strong cross-cultural validity and is suitable for cross-cultural comparisons of COVID-19 dysfunctional anxiety symptoms in the general population of the twelve Latin American countries evaluated. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-02563-0.

Cross-Cultural Validation of a New Version in Spanish of Four Items of the Preventive COVID-19 Infection Behaviors Scale (PCIBS) in Twelve Latin American Countries.

The invariance of the Preventive COVID-19 Infection Behaviors Scale (PCIBS) was evaluated in 12 Latin American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay). A total of 5183 people from the aforementioned countries participated, selected using the snowball sampling method. Measurement invariance was assessed by multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) and Multi-Group Factor Analysis Alignment (CFA-MIAL). In addition, item characteristics were assessed based on Item Response Theory. The results indicate that the original five-item version of the PCIBS is not adequate; whereas a four-item version of the PCIBS (PCIBS-4) showed a good fit in all countries. Thus, using the MG-CFA method, the PCIBS-4 achieved metric invariance, while the CFA-MIAL method indicated that the PCIBS-4 shows metric and scalar invariance. Likewise, the four items present increasing difficulties and high values in the discrimination parameters. The comparison of means of the PCIBS-4 reported irrelevant differences between countries; however, Mexico and Peru presented the highest frequency of preventive behaviors related to COVID-19. It is concluded that the PCIBS-4 is a unidimensional self-report measure which is reliable and invariant across the twelve participating Latin American countries. It is expected that the findings will be of interest to social and health scientists, as well as those professionals directly involved in public health decision making.