1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Behavior, social and economic impact of COVID‐19 responses among healthcare professionals: Development and validation of COVID‐19 Responses Impact Questionnaire (COVRiQ)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          As the world goes through the fourth wave and the continued emergence of new COVID‐19 variants, the general and work‐related risks of healthcare professionals are expected to rise. This has the capacity to adversely affect productivity and efficiency in the healthcare delivery system, particularly in this era of global shortage of trained healthcare professionals. We aimed to develop and validate a new instrument known as the COVID‐19 Responses Impact Questionnaire (COVRiQ) to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on the healthcare professionals managing the COVID‐19 pandemic. This methodological study involved three steps: the formulation of the COVRiQ draft, content and face validation, and construct validity. A total of 61 questions were drafted with 3‐point Likert scale answers. From the list, 39 were rated valid by a panel of experts and subsequently tested on 301 participants. The results were analyzed and validated using exploratory factor analysis on SPSS. Components were extracted and questions with low factor loading were removed. The internal consistency was measured with Cronbach's alpha. Following analysis, three components were extracted and named as behavioral, social, and economic impacts. In general, 29 items were deleted leaving 32 out of 61 questions retained as the final validated COVRiQ. Internal consistency showed high reliability with Cronbach's alpha of 0.91. Participants scored a total cumulative mean of 118.74 marks. A subanalysis by occupation showed that medical assistants scored the lowest in the group with a score of 22.3% whereas medical specialists scored the highest at 77.7%. Higher score indicates higher impact of COVID‐19 responses among healthcare professionals. The new COVRiQ consisting of 32 items demonstrated to be user friendly with good psychometric properties and valid for assessing the impacts of COVID‐19 responses among healthcare professionals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Fear of COVID-19 Scale: Development and Initial Validation

          Background The emergence of the COVID-19 and its consequences has led to fears, worries, and anxiety among individuals worldwide. The present study developed the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) to complement the clinical efforts in preventing the spread and treating of COVID-19 cases. Methods The sample comprised 717 Iranian participants. The items of the FCV-19S were constructed based on extensive review of existing scales on fears, expert evaluations, and participant interviews. Several psychometric tests were conducted to ascertain its reliability and validity properties. Results After panel review and corrected item-total correlation testing, seven items with acceptable corrected item-total correlation (0.47 to 0.56) were retained and further confirmed by significant and strong factor loadings (0.66 to 0.74). Also, other properties evaluated using both classical test theory and Rasch model were satisfactory on the seven-item scale. More specifically, reliability values such as internal consistency (α = .82) and test–retest reliability (ICC = .72) were acceptable. Concurrent validity was supported by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (with depression, r = 0.425 and anxiety, r = 0.511) and the Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Scale (with perceived infectability, r = 0.483 and germ aversion, r = 0.459). Conclusion The Fear of COVID-19 Scale, a seven-item scale, has robust psychometric properties. It is reliable and valid in assessing fear of COVID-19 among the general population and will also be useful in allaying COVID-19 fears among individuals.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            An index of factorial simplicity

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations.

              Nurse researchers typically provide evidence of content validity for instruments by computing a content validity index (CVI), based on experts' ratings of item relevance. We compared the CVI to alternative indexes and concluded that the widely-used CVI has advantages with regard to ease of computation, understandability, focus on agreement of relevance rather than agreement per se, focus on consensus rather than consistency, and provision of both item and scale information. One weakness is its failure to adjust for chance agreement. We solved this by translating item-level CVIs (I-CVIs) into values of a modified kappa statistic. Our translation suggests that items with an I-CVI of .78 or higher for three or more experts could be considered evidence of good content validity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                masturamujar@usm.my
                Journal
                Nurs Health Sci
                Nurs Health Sci
                10.1111/(ISSN)1442-2018
                NHS
                Nursing & Health Sciences
                John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd (Melbourne )
                1441-0745
                1442-2018
                04 August 2022
                04 August 2022
                : 10.1111/nhs.12965
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Nursing Science, Faculty of Health Sciences and Technology Ebonyi State University Abakaliki Nigeria
                [ 2 ] Department of Community Health, Advanced Medical and Dental Institute Universiti Sains Malaysia Penang Malaysia
                [ 3 ] Department of Medical Biochemistry, Faculty of basic medical sciences Ebonyi State University Abakaliki Nigeria
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Noor Mastura Mohd Mujar, Department of Community Health, Advanced Medical and Dental Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia.

                Email: masturamujar@ 123456usm.my

                Article
                NHS12965
                10.1111/nhs.12965
                9349758
                35689418
                52081d33-4480-49cb-967a-eb4882ec6c56
                © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

                This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.

                History
                : 20 April 2022
                : 20 October 2021
                : 20 April 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, Pages: 12, Words: 8214
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                corrected-proof
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.1.7 mode:remove_FC converted:04.08.2022

                coronavirus,covid‐19 infection,covid‐19 responses,healthcare professional,impact,questionnaire,reliability,sars‐cov‐2,validity

                Comments

                Comment on this article