ArticleBMC psychology2023
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.
Article in BMC psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the Patient Self-Advocacy Scale using classical test theory and item response theory.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Chinese version of the Physical Resilience Scale (PRS): reliability and validity test based on Rasch analysis.BMC public health · 2024Article
- The mediating effect of resilience and COVID-19 anxiety on the relationship between social support and insomnia among healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: Integration with computerized adaptive testing.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 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
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSince March 2022, the COVID-19 epidemic has rebounded widely and frequently in China. Healthcare workers have faced grand challenges such as soaring COVID-19 patients, being busy with the nucleic acid screening of all the populations in the epidemic areas every day, and testing positive for COVID-19, all of which contributed to anxiety easily according to the Conservation of Resources theory. However, anxiety among healthcare workers is not only associated with personal health but also adversely affects the quality of health services. Therefore, it is crucial to search for suitable tools to monitor the anxiety related to COVID-19 among healthcare workers. The current study aimed to test the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS) in Chinese healthcare workers.
methodsThe current study employed a cross-sectional design. The CAS was translated into Chinese. Then, according to Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) models, the psychometric properties of the Chinese version were measured among 811 healthcare workers.
resultsThe split-half reliability was 0.855. The Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.895. The retest coefficient was 0.901 with 10 days as the retest interval. The content validity index was 0.920. In exploratory factor analysis, one common factor was extracted and explained 72.559% of the total variance. All item load values on the common factor ranged from 0.790 to 0.885, and the communality of each item ranged from 0.625 to 0.784. With confirmatory factor analysis, the single factor model showed an excellent goodness-of-fit, chi-square/degree of freedom (χ
conclusionThe Chinese version of CAS has good psychometric properties in healthcare workers after China adjusted the COVID-19 management measures during the COVID-19 Omicron epidemic, and can be used for assessing the anxiety associated with COVID-19 in Chinese healthcare workers.
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.