Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35300274›Full record

ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2022

Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale (MoVac-COVID19S): Evidence of Measurement Invariance Across Five Countries.

I-Hua Chen, Pei-Ling Wu, Cheng-Fang Yen, Irfan Ullah, Sheikh Shoib, Shafi Ullah Zahid, Aadil Bashir, Naved Iqbal, Frimpong-Manso Addo, Emma Sethina Adjaottor and 5 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Predictors of COVID-19 Stress and COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance among Adolescents in Ghana.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

I-Hua Chen *Chinese Academy of Education Big Data, Qufu Normal University, Qufu City, Shandong, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0001-6999-6406
Pei-Ling Wu *School of Medicine, College of Medicine, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Cheng-Fang Yen *Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, 80708, Taiwan.
Irfan UllahKabir Medical College, Gandhara University, Peshawar, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0003-1100-101X
Sheikh ShoibSheikh Shoib Department of Psychiatry, Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Hospital, Srinagar, India.
Shafi Ullah ZahidDepartment of Neurosurgery, Jamhuriat hospital, Kabul, Afghanistan.
Aadil BashirDepartment of Social Work, University of Kashmir, Kashmir, India.
Naved IqbalDepartment of Psychology, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India.
Frimpong-Manso AddoDepartment of Behavioural Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Emma Sethina AdjaottorDepartment of Behavioural Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Gifty Boakye AmankwaahDepartment of Behavioural Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Daniel Kwasi AhorsuDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0003-0530-8138
Mark D GriffithsInternational Gaming Research Unit, Psychology Department, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8880-6524
Chung-Ying LinInstitute of Allied Health Sciences, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-2129-4242
Amir H PakpourDepartment of Nursing, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Jönköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8798-5345

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The percentage of individuals who were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 was 53% worldwide, 62% in Asia, and 11% in Africa at the time of writing (February 9, 2022). In addition to administrative issues, vaccine hesitancy is an important factor contributing to the relatively low rate of vaccination. The Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale (MoVac-COVID19S) was developed to assess COVID-19 vaccination acceptance levels. However, it has only been tested among Taiwanese, mainland Chinese, and Ghanaian populations (Chen et al, 2021; Fan et al, 2021; Yeh et al, 2021). Therefore, the present study examined the construct validity and measurement invariance of the MoVac-COVID19S among individuals from five countries (ie, Taiwan, mainland China, India, Ghana, and Afghanistan). Participants and Methods: A cross-sectional survey study recruited 6053 participants across five countries who completed the survey between January and March 2021. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) fit indices were used to examine factor structure and measurement invariance across the five countries. Results: The fit indices of the CFA were relatively good across the countries except for the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Moreover, the four-factor structure (either nine or 12 items) had a better fit than the one-factor structure. However, the four-factor model using nine MoVac-COVID19S items was the only model that had measurement invariance support for both factor loadings and item intercepts across the five countries. Conclusion: The present study confirmed that the MoVac-COVID19S has acceptable psychometric properties and can be used to assess an individual's willingness to get COVID-19 vaccination.

Indexed as

factor structurevaccine hesitancyyoung adults

Identifiers

PMID35300274
PMCPMC8922466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.