ArticleScientific reports2023
Cross-cultural validation of the COVID-19 peritraumatic distress index (CPDI) among Spanish and Peruvian populations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant psychological impact worldwide. The COVID-19 Peritraumatic Distress Index (CPDI) is widely used to assess psychological stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although CPDI has been validated in Peru and Spain, no cross-cultural validation studies have been conducted. As an exploratory aim, differences in CPDI factorial scores between the most prevalent medical conditions in the two samples (arterial hypertension, respiratory diseases and anxious-depressive disorders) from a general population of Peru and Spain were investigated. We conducted secondary data analysis with data from Peru and Spain to validate the CPDI in a cross-cultural context. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) were performed to evaluate the factor structure and measurement invariance of the CPDI across cultural contexts. Concerning the exploratory analysis, we performed a U-Mann-Whitney test to evaluate differences in the factorial scores in the two samples. This study revealed a two-factor solution (stress and rumination/information) for the CPDI that included 21 of the 24 original items, and consistent with previous studies. The MGCFA demonstrated measurement invariance across cultural contexts (scalar invariance), indicating that the CPDI construct has the same meaning across both groups, regardless of cultural context and language variations of Spanish. Patients with anxious-depressive disorders showed higher CPDI factorial scores for both factors, whereas patients with respiratory diseases were only associated with the stress factor. This study provides evidence for the cross-cultural validity of the CPDI, highlighting its utility as a reliable instrument for assessing psychological stress in the context of COVID-19 across different cultures. These findings have important implications for developing and validating measures to assess psychological distress in different cultural contexts.
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.