Factorial Validity, Reliability, Measurement Invariance and the Graded Response Model for the COVID-19 Anxiety Scale in a Sample of Ecuadorians.

IF 1.3 Omega Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-19 DOI:10.1177/00302228221116515
Rodrigo Moreta-Herrera, Tomás Caycho-Rodríguez, Alexandra Salinas, Micaela Jiménez-Borja, Daniel Gavilanes-Gómez, Carlos José Jiménez-Mosquera
{"title":"Factorial Validity, Reliability, Measurement Invariance and the Graded Response Model for the COVID-19 Anxiety Scale in a Sample of Ecuadorians.","authors":"Rodrigo Moreta-Herrera, Tomás Caycho-Rodríguez, Alexandra Salinas, Micaela Jiménez-Borja, Daniel Gavilanes-Gómez, Carlos José Jiménez-Mosquera","doi":"10.1177/00302228221116515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aims of the research are to evaluate the factorial validity, internal consistency, measurement invariance, discrimination, and difficulty of the Covid-19 Anxiety Scale (CAS) applied to a sample of Ecuadorian adults (<i>N</i> = 451). The study is based on an instrumental design with Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) technics. The results confirmed the validity of the CAS single-factor structure, with measurement invariance across gender and high internal consistency. Additionally, all CAS items displayed adequate discrimination indexes and proper ordering of the difficulty thresholds. In a conclusion, the CAS is a valid measurement scale for Ecuadorian adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":74338,"journal":{"name":"Omega","volume":" ","pages":"1078-1093"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9297068/pdf/10.1177_00302228221116515.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Omega","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228221116515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aims of the research are to evaluate the factorial validity, internal consistency, measurement invariance, discrimination, and difficulty of the Covid-19 Anxiety Scale (CAS) applied to a sample of Ecuadorian adults (N = 451). The study is based on an instrumental design with Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) technics. The results confirmed the validity of the CAS single-factor structure, with measurement invariance across gender and high internal consistency. Additionally, all CAS items displayed adequate discrimination indexes and proper ordering of the difficulty thresholds. In a conclusion, the CAS is a valid measurement scale for Ecuadorian adults.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新冠肺炎焦虑量表在厄瓜多尔样本中的因子有效性、可靠性、测量不变性和分级反应模型。
本研究的目的是评估 Covid-19 焦虑量表(CAS)的因子效度、内部一致性、测量不变性、区分度和难度,该量表适用于厄瓜多尔成年人样本(N = 451)。研究采用了工具设计,并运用了经典测验理论(CTT)和项目反应理论(IRT)技术。研究结果证实了 CAS 单因素结构的有效性,具有跨性别测量不变性和较高的内部一致性。此外,所有 CAS 项目都显示出足够的区分度指数和适当的难度阈值排序。总之,CAS 对厄瓜多尔成年人来说是一个有效的测量量表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Turkish Validity and Reliability Study of "Intensive Care Nurses" Attitude Scale Toward Brain Death and Organ Transplantation. Find Meaning and Help: The Lived Experiences and Support Needs of Iranian Muslim Husbands of Women Undergoing Mastectomy From Diagnosis to the End of Life. The Reliability and Validity Study of Turkish Version of the Death Depression Scale-Revised Among Nurses. Sanctity of Life or God's Command? Investigating Religious Determinants of Attitudes Toward Three Cases of Unnatural Death: Capital Punishment, Abortion, and Euthanasia. Death Preparedness: Development and Initial Validation of the Advance Planning Preparedness Scale.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1