Um percurso pela obra de Freud e Lacan que objetive esclarecer conceito e usos dos termos agressividade e violência conduz ao esclarecimento de que tais termos não se superpõem, ainda que possam estar interligados. O contexto em que aparecem sempre supõe algo de renúncia por parte do sujeito, devido ao tratamento que a civilização dá ao gozo. A agressividade, porém, está circunscrita à estruturação do eu enquanto a violência se ordena em torno da lógica que implica a entrada do vivente na linguagem, que não é sem conseqüências. São consideradas questões atuais sobre o tema, a partir das coordenadas do discurso capitalista e suas implicações subjetivas.

The Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS) was recently developed to assess dysfunctional anxiety related to COVID-19. Although different studies reported that the CAS is psychometrically sound, it is unclear whether it is invariant across countries. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the measurement invariance of the CAS in twelve Latin American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay). A total of 5196 people participated, with a mean age of 34.06 (SD = 26.54). Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine the measurement invariance of the CAS across countries and gender. Additionally, the graded response model (GRM) was used to provide a global representation of the representativeness of the scale with respect to the COVID-19 dysfunctional anxiety construct. The unidimensional structure of the five-item CAS was not confirmed in all countries. Therefore, it was suggested that a four-item model of the CAS (CAS-4) provides a better fit across the twelve countries and reliable scores. Multigroup CFA showed that the CAS-4 exhibits scalar invariance across all twelve countries and all genders. In addition, the CAS-4 items are more informative at average and high levels of COVID-19 dysfunctional anxiety than at lower levels. According to the results, the CAS-4 is an instrument with strong cross-cultural validity and is suitable for cross-cultural comparisons of COVID-19 dysfunctional anxiety symptoms in the general population of the twelve Latin American countries evaluated. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-02563-0.

The invariance of the Preventive COVID-19 Infection Behaviors Scale (PCIBS) was evaluated in 12 Latin American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay). A total of 5183 people from the aforementioned countries participated, selected using the snowball sampling method. Measurement invariance was assessed by multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) and Multi-Group Factor Analysis Alignment (CFA-MIAL). In addition, item characteristics were assessed based on Item Response Theory. The results indicate that the original five-item version of the PCIBS is not adequate; whereas a four-item version of the PCIBS (PCIBS-4) showed a good fit in all countries. Thus, using the MG-CFA method, the PCIBS-4 achieved metric invariance, while the CFA-MIAL method indicated that the PCIBS-4 shows metric and scalar invariance. Likewise, the four items present increasing difficulties and high values in the discrimination parameters. The comparison of means of the PCIBS-4 reported irrelevant differences between countries; however, Mexico and Peru presented the highest frequency of preventive behaviors related to COVID-19. It is concluded that the PCIBS-4 is a unidimensional self-report measure which is reliable and invariant across the twelve participating Latin American countries. It is expected that the findings will be of interest to social and health scientists, as well as those professionals directly involved in public health decision making.

No abstract

The present study aimed to evaluate the cross-cultural measurement invariance of the Pandemic Grief Scale (PGS) in ten Latin American countries. A total of 2,321 people who had lost a family member or other loved one due to COVID-19 participated, with a mean age of 34.22 years old (SD = 11.99). In addition to the PGS, a single item of suicidal ideation was applied. The unidimensional model of the PGS had adequate fit in most countries and good reliability estimates. There was evidence of measurement invariance by country and gender. Also, a one-point increase in the PGS was associated with an almost twofold increase in the odds of suicidal ideation. Scores greater than or equal to 4 on the PGS are proposed as a cut off to identify individuals with suicidal ideation. Strong evidence of the cross-cultural validity of the PGS is provided.