The Pandemic Stressor Scale: factorial validity and reliability of a measure of stressors during a pandemic

Abstract

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.

Risk and protective factors for posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic – findings from a pan-European study

“…Therefore, we developed new measures such as the PaSS to measure pandemic-specific stressor domains. While we found the first evidence for their validity (Lotzin et al, 2022 ), the measure has not been evaluated previously. Furthermore, the cross-sectional design of this study makes it impossible to examine causal relationships and the direction of effects.…”

“…The burden of pandemic-related stressors was assessed by a self-constructed 30-item questionnaire, the Pandemic Stressor Scale (Lotzin et al, 2022 ). The PaSS measures the burden of pandemic-related stressors in nine domains ( Restricted social contact; Problems with childcare ; Work-related problems; Fear of infection; Restricted activity; Crisis management and communication; Restricted access to resources , Difficult housing conditions ; and Burden of infection ) on four-point scales ranging from 0 to 3 (0 = ‘Not at all burdened’; 1 = ‘Somewhat burdened’; 2 = ‘Moderately burdened’; 3 = ‘Strongly burdened).…”

“…The subscale scores are the average of the item scores that belong to the respective scale. The PaSS has shown first evidence for its factorial validity and reliability (Lotzin et al, 2022 ).…”

Disentangling the associations between past childhood adversity and psychopathology during the COVID-19 pandemic: The mediating roles of specific pandemic stressors and coping strategies

“…The Pandemic Stressor Scale (PaSS) was used to evaluate the stressors related to the COVID-19 pandemic ( Lotzin et al, 2022 ). PaSS is a 30-item measure that includes questions in relation to nine major pandemic stressors: problems with childcare (e.g., difficulties with combining work with childcare, loss of childcare), restricted physical social contact (e.g., isolation, restricted face-to-face contact with loved ones), work-related problems (e.g., reduced income, redundancy), fear of infection (e.g., fear of oneself or loved ones contracting the virus), burden of infection (e.g., fear of transmitting the virus, stigma associated with having the virus), restricted activity (e.g., restrictions around leisure), crisis management and communication (e.g., government management and media coverage of the pandemic), restricted access to resources (e.g., restricted access to commodities and healthcare services), and difficult housing conditions (e.g., no place to retreat, conflicts and violence at home).…”

An empirical analysis of facilitators and barriers to the hybrid work model: a cross-cultural and multi-theoretical approach

“…, 2020). The other pandemic-induced stressors are general life and financial disruption, concerns related to self-health and that of the family (Lotzin et al. , 2022).…”