Cargando…

Parallel exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the Hungarian Fear of COVID-19 Scale in a large general population sample: a psychometric and dimensionality evaluation

BACKGROUND: This study aims to confirm validity and reliability of the Hungarian version of Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) and evaluate its dimensional structure. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey was carried out in 2021 among Hungarian general population. In addition to classical test theory method...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Balázs, Péter György, Mitev, Ariel, Brodszky, Valentin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9333073/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35902834
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13789-3
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: This study aims to confirm validity and reliability of the Hungarian version of Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) and evaluate its dimensional structure. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey was carried out in 2021 among Hungarian general population. In addition to classical test theory methods, construct dimensionality of FCV-19S was assessed using EFA with principal axis factoring method and CFA with diagonally-weighted least squares estimation. Fear score was compared in age, gender, educational level, vaccination and infection subgroups. RESULTS: Significant differences in FCV-19S mean scores were observed between three subgroups (age, gender, vaccination). Items showed good internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.88). EFA identified two latent factors (eig = 4.2 and 1.02), though parallel analysis supports the one-factor model. The two-dimensional structure was confirmed by CFA, items 3,4,6,7 correlated with Factor 1 (physiological fear), items 1,2,5 with Factor 2 (emotional fear). CONCLUSION: The Hungarian version of FCV-19S seems valid and reliable. The EFA identified two-latent factors (emotional and physiological fear), that was confirmed by CFA. The two-factor structure had better model fit, though its’ acceptance is limited. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13789-3.