ArticlePloS one2023
COVID-19 stress syndrome in the German general population: Validation of a German version of the COVID Stress Scales.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is there evidence for factorial invariance of the COVID Stress Scales? an analysis of North American and cross-cultural populations.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Psychometric properties of the traditional Chinese version of the COVID Stress Scales in Hong Kong.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: Stress and strain profiles in the German population.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- The impact of the pandemic on the perception of stress and danger, and the adjustment of psychiatric and general medical staff of German military hospitals.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Profiles and predictors of mental health of university students in Hong Kong under the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in psychology · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID Stress Scales (CSS) are a new self-report instrument for multidimensional assessment of psychological stress in the context of the pandemic. The CSS have now been translated and validated in over 20 languages, but a validated German version has not yet been available. Therefore, the aim was to develop a German version of the CSS, to test its factor structure, reliability, and validity, and to compare it with international studies. In an online survey (08/2020-06/2021), N = 1774 individuals from the German general population (71.5% female; Mage = 41.2 years, SD = 14.2) completed the CSS as well as questionnaires on related constructs and psychopathology. After eight weeks, participants were asked to participate again for the purpose of calculating retest reliability (N = 806). For the German version, the 6-factor structure with good model fit (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, RMSEA = 0.06) was confirmed, with the six subscales: Danger, Socio-Economic Consequences, Xenophobia, Contamination, Traumatic Stress, and Compulsive Checking. Internal consistencies ranged from ω = .82-.94 (except Compulsive Checking ω = .70), and retest reliability from rtt = .62-.82. Convergent and discriminant validity were confirmed for the German version. Related constructs such as health anxiety, general xenophobia, obsessive-compulsive behavior, and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms correlated moderately with the respective subscale and lower with the other scales. With anxiety and depression, Traumatic Stress showed the strongest correlation. Overall, there was a high degree of agreement in an international comparison. The CSS can help to identify pandemic-related psychological stress and to derive appropriate interventions.
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.