ArticleInternational journal of mental health nursing2021
Reliability of the tools used to examine psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping amongst migrants and non-migrants in Australia.
Article in International journal of mental health nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence and Risk Factors of Psychological Distress and Depression Among Bangladeshi Migrants In Australia: A Cross-sectional Study.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026Article
- Toward Digital Self-Monitoring of Mental Health in the General Population: Scoping Review of Existing Approaches to Self-Report Measurement.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
- Article
- Pandemic Loneliness in Healthcare Workers. Does It Predict Later Psychological Distress?Psychological reports · 2024Article
- Health and Wellbeing of Regional and Rural Australian Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Baseline Cross-Sectional Findings from the Loddon Mallee Healthcare Worker COVID-19 Study-A Prospective Cohort Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Article
- COVID-19: Factors Associated with the Psychological Distress, Fear and Resilient Coping Strategies among Community Members in Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Fear of COVID-19 and its association with mental health-related factors: systematic review and meta-analysis.BJPsych open · 2022Review
- Psychological impact of COVID-19 on healthcare workers: cross-sectional analyses from 14 countries.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2022Article
- Psychological Distress among Bangladeshi Dental Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- COVID-19: Factors associated with psychological distress, fear, and coping strategies among community members across 17 countries.Globalization and health · 2021Article
- Psychological distress, fear and coping among Malaysians during the COVID-19 pandemic.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study tools examining psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping amongst migrants and non-migrants in Australia are very limited. The aim of this research was to assess the psychometric properties and correlation of the English version of Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K-10), Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCSV-19S), and Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) tools during the COVID-19 pandemic situation in Australia. Data from a cross-sectional survey (n = 516) were utilized to examine reliability; 299 (57.9%) were migrants. High internal consistency, as evidenced by Cronbach's alpha, was found for the K-10 (0.92), FCV-19S (0.87) and BRCS (0.66) tools. The corresponding values for migrants and non-migrants were (0.92, 0.87, 0.67) and (0.92, 0.86, 0.63), respectively. Item-total correlations ranged 0.57-0.78 for K-10, 0.62-0.69 for FCV-19S, and 0.39-0.50 for BRCS tools. EFA retained a single factor for each tool with adequate factor loadings. The scoring of K-10 was significantly predicted by the scoring of FCV-19S (r = 0.284, P < 0.001) and BRCS tool (r = 0.132, P < 0.01). Therefore, these tools can be used reliably amongst both migrant and non-migrant population in Australia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.