Is there evidence for factorial invariance of the COVID Stress Scales? an analysis of North American and cross-cultural populations

Front Psychiatry. 2024 Mar 26:15:1381124. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1381124. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the mental health of more citizens globally than any previous modern viral outbreak. In response to the psychological challenges associated with COVID-19, the COVID Stress Scales (CSS) were developed to assess the presence and severity of COVID-related distress. The initial North American validation study of the CSS identified that the scale comprised five factors: danger and contamination fears, fear of socioeconomic consequences, xenophobia, checking and reassurance seeking, and traumatic stress symptoms. The CSS have since been validated across a multitude of international populations. However, findings support a five- and six-factor model. Methodological issues make interpreting most studies supporting a five-factor model challenging. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate the factor structure of the CSS using data from North American samples, to assess for potential factorial invariance, and compare these results to cross-cultural findings. Multiple confirmatory factor analyses (mCFA) were conducted across 28 different groups (e.g., age, ethnicity/race, sex) from two large independent North American samples from 2020 (n = 6827) and 2021 (n = 5787), assessing the fit indices of the five-, six-, and alternative-factor model of the CSS. The current results provide evidence for factorial invariance of the six-factor model of the CSS across different North American demographics and highlight potential challenges in interpreting the results of studies that have supported a five-factor model of the CSS.

Keywords: COVID stress scales; confirmatory factor analysis; factor analysis; factorial invariance; literature review.

Grants and funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This study was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant: #439751.