ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Assessing anxiety during the COVID-19 delta epidemic: Validation of the Chinese coronavirus anxiety scale.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Further Psychometric Support for the Italian Version of the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale with a Sample of Teachers.The Psychiatric quarterly · 2025Article
- 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
- A social network analysis: mental health scales used during the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the coronavirus anxiety scale (CAS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) delta epidemic. A total of 2,116 participants on the Chinese mainland completed the online survey. We employed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to investigate the factor structure. The findings showed that the one-factor model of the CAS Chinese version fitted perfectly with the data. The multigroup CFAs showed the measurement invariance across gender and age groups (18-29 and 30-68). We also examined the CAS's internal consistency and convergent and concurrent validity. The results demonstrated that the one-factor model had good reliability and convergent and concurrent validity. Overall, according to our findings, the CAS Chinese version was reliable for measuring coronavirus anxiety during the COVID-19 delta outbreak.
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.