Background:The COVID-19 pandemic exposes individuals to multiple stressors, such as quarantine, physical distancing, job loss, risk of infection, and loss of loved ones. Such a complex array of stressors potentially lead to symptoms of adjustment disorder. Objective: This cross-sectional exploratory study examined relationships between risk and protective factors, stressors, and symptoms of adjustment disorder during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Data from the first wave of the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS) longitudinal ADJUST Study were used. N = 15,563 participants aged 18 years and above were recruited in eleven countries (Austria,

Background This study aimed to assess the factorial validity and reliability of the Pandemic Stressor Scale (PaSS), a new measure to assess the severity of distress for different stressors relevant during a pandemic or epidemic. Methods The PaSS was administered in N = 2760 German participants. Exploratory factor analysis was used to extract factors. The factor structure obtained in the German sample was examined in N = 1021 Austrian participants using confirmatory factor analysis. χ2, RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, TLI were assessed as global goodness of fit indices for two models (Model 1: nine-factor model; Model 2: nine-factor model combined with a second-order general factor). We additionally assessed factor loadings, communalities, factor reliability, discriminant validity as local fit indices. Internal consistency, item discrimination, and item difficulty were assessed as additional test quality criteria. Results The results of the exploratory factor analysis suggested a nine-factor solution with factor loadings accounting for 50.4% of the total variance (Factor 1 ‘Problems with Childcare’, Factor 2 ‘Work-related Problems’, Factor 3 ‘Restricted Face-to-Face Contact’, Factor 4 ‘Burden of Infection ‘, Factor 5 ‘Crisis Management and Communication’, Factor 6 ‘Difficult Housing Condition’, Factor 7 ‘Fear of Infection’, Factor 8 ‘Restricted Access to Resources’, Factor 9 ‘Restricted Activity’). The confirmatory factor analysis showed a sufficient global fit for both tested models (Model 1: χ2 (369, N = 1021) = 1443.28, p < .001, RMSEA = .053, SRMR = .055, CFI = .919, TLI = .904; Model 2: χ2 (396, N = 1021) = 1948.51, p < .001, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = .074, CFI = .883, TLI = .871). The results of the chi-square difference test indicated a significantly better model-fit of Model 1 compared to Model 2 (∆χ2 (27, N = 1021) = 505.23, p < .001). Local goodness of fit indices were comparable for both tested models. We found good factor reliabilities for all factors and moderate to large factor loadings of the items as indicators. In Model 2, four first-order factors showed small factor loadings on the second-order general factor. Conclusion The Pandemic Stressor Scale showed sufficient factorial validity for the nine measured domains of stressors during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Aims: Athletes in the general population report higher satisfaction of basic needs when coaches are providing an autonomy supportive sport climate (ASSC). Our study aims at investigating whether ASSC is associated with satisfaction with life in athletes with intellectual disabilities (ID) and whether this association is mediated by basic need satisfaction. Method: During the Special Olympics World Winter Games 2017, 168 athletes with ID (M ¼ 33.86 years; SD ¼ 10.47) completed questionnaires measuring ASSC, basic need satisfaction (autonomy, competence, and relatedness), and satisfaction with life. Multiple linear regression analyses and mediation analyses were performed. The mediation model was controlled for the potential impact of participating in team vs. individual sports. Additionally, gender effects were explored. Results: ASSC was significantly associated with satisfaction with life (b ¼ .38, p < .001). This association was mediated by competence (indirect effect: ab 1 ¼ .15; CI [.05; .32]) but not by autonomy or relatedness. No effects were found related to participating in team vs. individual sports or gender. Conclusions: Our study provides evidence that an ASSC is associated with athletes perceiving themselves as more competent and reporting more satisfaction with life.

Background: This study aimed to assess the factorial validity and reliability of the Pandemic Stressor Scale (PaSS), a new measure to assess the severity of distress for different stressors relevant during a pandemic or epidemic. Methods: The PaSS was administered in N = 2760 German participants. Exploratory factor analysis was used to extract factors. The factor structure obtained in the German sample was examined in N = 1021 Austrian participants using confirmatory factor analysis. χ², RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, TLI were assessed as global goodness of fit indices for two models (Model 1: nine-factor model; Model 2: nine-factor model combined with a second-order general factor). We additionally assessed factor loadings, communalities, factor reliability, discriminant validity as local fit indices. Internal consistency, item discrimination, and item difficulty were assessed as additional test quality criteria.Results: The results of the exploratory factor analysis suggested a nine-factor solution with factor loadings accounting for 50.4% of the total variance (Factor 1 ‘Problems with Childcare’, Factor 2 ‘Work-related Problems’, Factor 3 ‘Restricted Face-to-Face Contact’, Factor 4 ‘Burden of Infection ‘, Factor 5 ‘Crisis Management and Communication’, Factor 6 ‘Difficult Housing Condition’, Factor 7 ‘Fear of Infection’, Factor 8 ‘Restricted Access to Resources’, Factor 9 ‘Restricted Activity’). The confirmatory factor analysis showed a sufficient global fit for both tested models (Model 1: χ² (369, N =1021) = 1443.28, p < .001, RMSEA = .053, SRMR = .055, CFI = .919, TLI = .904; Model 2: χ² (396, N = 1021) = 1948.51, p < .001, RMSEA = .062, SRMR = .074, CFI = .883, TLI = .871). The results of the chi-square difference test indicated a significantly better model-fit of Model 1 compared to Model 2 (∆χ² (27, N = 1021) = 505.23, p < .001). Local goodness of fit indices were comparable for both tested models. We found good factor reliabilities for all factors and moderate to large factor loadings of the items as indicators. In Model 2, four first-order factors showed small factor loadings on the second-order general factor. Conclusion: The Pandemic Stressor Scale showed sufficient factorial validity for the nine measured domains of stressors during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

IntroductionPersons with intellectual disability (ID) are at a higher risk of developing dementia than persons without ID, with an expected earlier onset. Assessment methods for the general population cannot be applied for persons with ID due to their pre-existing intellectual and functional impairments. As there is no agreed-upon measure to assess dementia in persons with ID, multiple instruments for this purpose have been developed and adapted in the past decades. This review aimed to identify all available informant-based instruments for the assessment of dementia in persons with ID, to evaluate and compare them according to their measurement properties, and to provide a recommendation for the most suitable instruments. Additionally, an overview of the amount and quality of research on these instruments will be provided.Methods and analysisThis review will be conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We will adhere to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines and use a set of characteristics developed for assessment instruments for persons with ID, the Characteristics of Assessment Instruments for Psychiatric Disorders in Persons with Intellectual Developmental Disorders. Two comprehensive, systematic literature searches will be applied in 10 international databases, including ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Risk of bias and quality assessment will be done according to COSMIN guidelines. We will apply the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the overall quality of the available evidence.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics statement is needed for this study. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at international conferences.