Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35629104›Full record

ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022

The Arabic Version of the Impact of Event Scale-Revised: Psychometric Evaluation among Psychiatric Patients and the General Public within the Context of COVID-19 Outbreak and Quarantine as Collective Traumatic Events.

Amira Mohammed Ali, Rasmieh Al-Amer, Hiroshi Kunugi, Elena Stănculescu, Samah M Taha, Mohammad Yousef Saleh, Abdulmajeed A Alkhamees, Amin Omar Hendawy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Amira Mohammed AliDepartment of Psychiatric Nursing and Mental Health, Faculty of Nursing, Alexandria University, Smouha, Alexandria 21527, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-6448-8282
Rasmieh Al-AmerFaculty of Nursing, Isra University, Amman 11953, Jordan.
Hiroshi KunugiDepartment of Psychiatry, Teikyo University School of Medicine, 2-11-1 Kaga, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173605, Japan.
Elena StănculescuFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Bucharest, 050663 Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-3912-812X
Samah M TahaPsychiatric and Mental Health Nursing Department, Faculty of Nursing, Mansoura University, Mansoura 30016, Egypt.
Mohammad Yousef SalehClinical Nursing Department, School of Nursing, The University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan.ORCID 0000-0003-2986-9626
Abdulmajeed A AlkhameesDepartment of Medicine, Unayzah College of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Qassim University, Unayzah 52571, Al Qassim, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0003-2808-2370
Amin Omar HendawyDepartment of Animal and Poultry Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Damanhour University, Damanhour 22516, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-4325-978X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has provoked the development of negative emotions in almost all societies since it first broke out in late 2019. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) is widely used to capture emotions, thoughts, and behaviors evoked by traumatic events, including COVID-19 as a collective and persistent traumatic event. However, there is less agreement on the structure of the IES-R, signifying a need for further investigation. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the IES-R among individuals in Saudi quarantine settings, psychiatric patients, and the general public during the COVID-19 outbreak. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the items of the IES-R present five factors with eigenvalues > 1. Examination of several competing models through confirmatory factor analysis resulted in a best fit for a six-factor structure, which comprises avoidance, intrusion, numbing, hyperarousal, sleep problems, and irritability/dysphoria. Multigroup analysis supported the configural, metric, and scalar invariance of this model across groups of gender, age, and marital status. The IES-R significantly correlated with the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-8, perceived health status, and perceived vulnerability to COVID-19, denoting good criterion validity. HTMT ratios of all the subscales were below 0.85, denoting good discriminant validity. The values of coefficient alpha in the three samples ranged between 0.90 and 0.93. In path analysis, correlated intrusion and hyperarousal had direct positive effects on avoidance, numbing, sleep, and irritability. Numbing and irritability mediated the indirect effects of intrusion and hyperarousal on sleep and avoidance. This result signifies that cognitive activation is the main factor driving the dynamics underlying the behavioral, emotional, and sleep symptoms of collective COVID-19 trauma. The findings support the robust validity of the Arabic IES-R, indicating it as a sound measure that can be applied to a wide range of traumatic experiences.

Indexed as

Arabic/Saudi Arabiaconcurrent validityconfirmatory factor analysisconvergent validityCoronavirus Disease-19COVID-19differential item functioningdiscriminant validity/known-group validitygender differenceshealthy individualsmeasurement invariancepost-traumatic stress disorderpsychiatric patientspsychometric evaluationquarantinethe general publicthe Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R)

Identifiers

PMID35629104
PMCPMC9144426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.