ArticleCurrent psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)2022
Cross-cultural validation of the new version of the
Article in Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Women's walking behaviour and subjective well-being in the middle-income neighbourhoods of Santiago, Chile.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Clinical utility of the GAD-7 for detecting generalized anxiety in Quechua indigenous people.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- COVID-19-related fear and anxiety in a sample of patients with type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study in Iran after several peaks of the pandemic.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2024Article
- Psychometric properties of the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale based on Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) models among Chinese front-line healthcare workers.BMC psychology · 2023Article
- Is the meaning of subjective well-being similar in Latin American countries? A cross-cultural measurement invariance study of the WHO-5 well-being index during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC psychology · 2023Article
- Pandemic grief in El Salvador: factors that predict dysfunctional grief due to a COVID-19 death among Salvadoran adults.Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS · 2023Article
- Does COVID-19 related symptomatology indicate a transdiagnostic neuropsychiatric disorder? - Multidisciplinary implications.World journal of psychiatry · 2022Review
- Spanish Translation and Validation of the COVID Stress Scales in Peru.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Assessing anxiety during the COVID-19 delta epidemic: Validation of the Chinese coronavirus anxiety scale.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- What Is the Support for Conspiracy Beliefs About COVID-19 Vaccines in Latin America? A Prospective Exploratory Study in 13 Countries.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Cross-Cultural Validation of a New Version in Spanish of Four Items of theFrontiers in psychology · 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
24 authors at 18 institutions in 12 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
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.