ArticleBMC psychology2026
Evaluating measurement invariance and diagnostic accuracy of climate anxiety scales in aging populations: a multi-instrument approach.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Climate change is increasingly recognized as a psychological stressor, with older adults representing a particularly vulnerable yet understudied group. This study evaluated the psychometric performance of three climate anxiety measures-the Hogge Climate Anxiety Scale (HCAS), Clayton Climate Change Anxiety Scale (CCCA), and Simon Climate Anxiety Scale (SCAS)-among 279 Persian-speaking older adults in Iran. Using a cross-sectional design, we examined structural validity, diagnostic accuracy, measurement invariance, and reliability, employing the GAI-SF as the criterion measure. All three instruments demonstrated acceptable construct validity based on exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. SCAS showed a stable three-factor structure and excellent internal consistency (ω = 0.97). In classification analyses, SCAS achieved the highest sensitivity (0.89) and overall diagnostic accuracy (DOR = 3.09), whereas CCCA demonstrated slightly higher specificity (0.36). Bland-Altman analysis indicated that HCAS had the lowest measurement bias relative to GAI-SF scores. Measurement invariance testing supported full scalar invariance for SCAS across gender and anxiety subgroups, while HCAS and CCCA achieved only partial invariance. Mokken scale analysis further confirmed strong scalability (H > 0.40) and satisfactory reliability (α > 0.85) across all measures, with CCCA showing the highest Loevinger's H (0.52). Age significantly predicted climate anxiety scores across all three scales (p < 0.001). Overall, SCAS emerged as the most robust and reliable instrument for assessing climate anxiety in Persian-speaking older adults, while HCAS showed the closest agreement with the criterion measure. These findings highlight the importance of culturally adapted, psychometrically sound tools for capturing climate anxiety in aging populations.
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.