ArticleBMC public health2025
Psychometric properties of the German Hogg Eco-Anxiety scale and its associations with psychological distress, self-efficacy and social support.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Presence of Eco-Anxiety in the General Population: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Disrupting the Climate Distress Cascade: Testing Community-Grounded Theories of Change Using Secondary Data From a Cross-Sectional Canadian Study.Chronic stress (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)Article
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
backgroundThe present study aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the German Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale (HEAS) as a reliable and valid instrument to measure eco-anxiety, and to explore its associations with sociodemographic and psychological variables.
methods322 German speaking participants (67.4% female; M = 36.64 [SD = 14.77] years old) were recruited via the internet and social media. Confirmatory factor analyses, reliability and correlational analyses, independent sample t-tests, and a multiple regression analysis were conducted.
resultsBoth in confirmatory factor analyses tested models were acceptable with an even better model fit of the four-factorial structure (CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.04) than of the second-order model (CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.06). The HEAS total scale (α = 0.91, ω = 0.91) and the HEAS subscales Affective Symptoms (α = 0.87, ω = 0.86), Rumination (α = 0.84, ω = 0.84), Behavioral Symptoms (α = 0.79, ω = 0.79) and Personal Impact Anxiety (α = 0.90, ω = 0.90) had good to excellent internal consistency coefficients. Correlational analyses showed significant associations between the HEAS total scale and subscales and measures of climate anxiety, psychological distress, partially self-efficacy and social support as well as some sociodemographic variables. Some significant sociodemographic differences were found for the HEAS total scale and subscales regarding gender and parental status but not age groups. Our multiple regression analysis resulted in psychological distress as the only significant predictor of eco-anxiety.
conclusionThe German HEAS is a reliable and valid instrument to assess anxiety about ecological problems.
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.