ArticleBMC psychology2022
Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Questionnaire: psychometric validation with a Portuguese sample.
Article in BMC psychology, 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of a Brief Self-Report Scale to Measure Perceived Immune Vulnerability (PIV) in Cancer Population.Cancers · 2025Article
- The psychometric properties and gender invariance of the Italian version of the Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Questionnaire (I-PVDQ) during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC psychology · 2022Article
- Correction to: Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Questionnaire: Psychometric validation with a Portuguese sample.BMC psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIndividual differences in one's perceived vulnerability to infectious diseases are implicated in psychological distress, social and behavioral disease avoidance phenomena. The Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Questionnaire (PVD) is the most extensively used measure when it comes to assessing subjective vulnerability to infectious diseases. However, this measure is not yet accessible to the Portuguese population. The present study aimed to adapt and validate the PVD with 136 Portuguese participants.
methodsFactorial, convergent and discriminant validity (of both the scale and between each factor), and reliability analysis were assessed.
resultsA modified bifactorial model, comprised of Perceived Infectability and Germ Aversion factors, was obtained, with acceptable goodness-of-fit indices, adequate convergent and discriminant validity, and good internal consistencies.
conclusionsOverall, the 10-items European-Portuguese PVD appears to be a reliable and valid measure of one's perceived vulnerability to disease, with potential relevance for application in both research and clinical practice pertaining to disease-avoidance processes.
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.