학술논문
Reliability of the tools used to examine psychological distress, fear of COVID‐19 and coping amongst migrants and non‐migrants in Australia.
Document Type
Article
Author
Source
Subject
*RESEARCH
*RESEARCH methodology evaluation
*RESEARCH methodology
*CROSS-sectional method
*FEAR
*MIGRANT labor
*PSYCHOMETRICS
*PSYCHOLOGICAL tests
*SURVEYS
*PSYCHOSOCIAL factors
*QUESTIONNAIRES
*SCALE analysis (Psychology)
*DESCRIPTIVE statistics
*FACTOR analysis
*PSYCHOLOGICAL adaptation
*RESIDENTIAL patterns
*STATISTICAL correlation
*COVID-19 pandemic
*PSYCHOLOGICAL distress
*PSYCHOLOGY of immigrants
RESEARCH evaluation
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Language
ISSN
1445-8330
Abstract
Study tools examining psychological distress, fear of COVID‐19 and coping amongst migrants and non‐migrants in Australia are very limited. The aim of this research was to assess the psychometric properties and correlation of the English version of Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K‐10), Fear of COVID‐19 Scale (FCSV‐19S), and Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) tools during the COVID‐19 pandemic situation in Australia. Data from a cross‐sectional survey (n = 516) were utilized to examine reliability; 299 (57.9%) were migrants. High internal consistency, as evidenced by Cronbach's alpha, was found for the K‐10 (0.92), FCV‐19S (0.87) and BRCS (0.66) tools. The corresponding values for migrants and non‐migrants were (0.92, 0.87, 0.67) and (0.92, 0.86, 0.63), respectively. Item‐total correlations ranged 0.57‐0.78 for K‐10, 0.62–0.69 for FCV‐19S, and 0.39–0.50 for BRCS tools. EFA retained a single factor for each tool with adequate factor loadings. The scoring of K‐10 was significantly predicted by the scoring of FCV‐19S (r = 0.284, P < 0.001) and BRCS tool (r = 0.132, P < 0.01). Therefore, these tools can be used reliably amongst both migrant and non‐migrant population in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]