Evaluation of the English version of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale and its relationship with behavior change and political beliefs

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has many individuals around the world fearing for their lives. The constant news coverage, rapid transmission, and relatively high mortality rate, make fearfulness a natural response. To assess the fear of COVID-19, the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) was developed. The primary aim of the present study is to conduct the first psychometric assessment and validation of the English version of the FCV-19S.Methods: Two samples were collected in New Zealand. Sample 1 comprised 1,624 participants of which 1,397 completed all questions and were used in the analyses. Sample 2 comprised 1,111 participants of which 1,023 completed all questions and were used in the analyses. Several psychometric tests were conducted to ascertain the scale’s reliability and validity.Results: Across both samples, the FCV-19S had high internal consistency. Consistent with the earlier validation studies, the FCV-19S displayed a moderately strong relationship with the perceived infectability and germ aversion subscales of the Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Scale (PVDS). Furthermore, FCV-19S scores were negatively correlated with the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) scores. With respect to the motivating role of fear, there was a significant relationship between FCV-19S scores and adherence to the lockdown rules that were implemented in New Zealand. Finally, consistent with recent reports on the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic, an exploratory question found that participants who rated themselves as more conservative tended to report lower FCV-19S scores.Conclusion: The English version of the COVID-19S is a sound unidimensional scale with robust psychometric properties and can be used with confidence among English-speaking populations.

Anxiety as a mediator of relationships between perceptions of the threat of COVID-19 and coping behaviors during the onset of the pandemic in Poland

“…Since we conducted our study, other studies have found that fear can motivate protective behaviors within the context of the COVID. For example, in a study of a representative sample in the UK, Harper et al [ 25 ] concluded that “Consistently, the only predictor of positive behavior change (e.g., social distancing, improved hand hygiene) was fear of COVID-19.” Similarly, Winter et al [ 26 ] concluded: “… there was a significant relationship between FCV-19S scores [a measure of fear] and adherence to the lockdown rules that were implemented in New Zealand.” Bashirian et al [ 27 ], working within the context of Protection Motivation Theory [ 28 ], found that fear was positively related to complying with COVID preventative behaviors among medical staff in Iran.…”

Factors associated with psychological distress, fear and coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia

“…Psychological impact was assessed by the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) [16], fear was assessed by the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S) [17], and coping strategies were assessed by the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) [18]. K10 was found to be a valid and reliable tool, with wide applications in research and clinical practice [16,19,20]; FCV-19S was developed more recently in response to the global pandemic of COVID-19, which was validated and tested for reliability in a few recent studies [17,21,22]; validity and reliability had also been tested for BRCS in earlier studies [18,23,24]. K10 has 10 items and response to each item in the questionnaire was measured using a 5-point Likert scale (none, a little, sometimes, most of the time, all the time).…”

Factors associated with psychological distress, fear and coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia

“…Psychological impact was assessed by the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) [16], fear was assessed by the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S) [17], and coping strategies were assessed by the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) [18]. K10 was found to be a valid and reliable tool, with wide applications in research and clinical practice [16,19,20]; FCV-19S was developed more recently in response to the global pandemic of COVID-19, which was validated and tested for reliability in a few recent studies [17,21,22]; validity and reliability had also been tested for BRCS in earlier studies [18,23,24]. K10 has ten items and response to each item in the questionnaire was measured using a 5-point Likert scale (none, a little, sometimes, most of the time, all the time).…”

“…All items were scored, and the total score categorised into low (score 10-15), moderate (score [16][17][18][19][20][21], high (score 22-29) and very high (score 30-50). FCV-19S has seven items and the response to each item was also measured using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree), with scores categorised into low (score 7-21) and high (score [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]. BRCS has four items and responses were collected again using a 5-point Likert scale (does not describe me at all, does not describe me, neutral, describes me, describes me very well), with scores similarly categorised into low (score 4-13), medium (score 14-16) and high (score 17-20) resilient copers.…”

“…Each study participant read the consent form along with plain language summary and ticked their consent in the online form prior to accessing the study questionnaire. * Cardiac diseases/Stroke/Hypertension/Hyperlipidaemia/Diabetes/Cancer/Chronic respiratory illness 19.6 (7.6) Range 10 to 45 Level of psychological distress (K10 categories) 547 Low (score [10][11][12][13][14][15] 205 (37.5) Moderate (score [16][17][18][19][20][21] 160 (29.3) High (score [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] 111 (20.3) Very high (score 71 (13.0)…”