. 2023 Feb 15;19(1):2176083. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2023.2176083

Table 4.

Functional and interactive-critical VL scores from 17 surveys about COVID-19, using COVID-19-VLS or HLVa. In the included studies VL score was calculated uniformly based on tool instructions, as described in the validation studies. Some study populations have been split, as reported in the Results section of the selected publications..

Author, Country	Tool used	N=	Average Functional VL score	SD	Average Intercritical VL score	SD	Paired difference	Average Total VL score	Notes
1 - Alshehry et al. Saudi Arabia³⁸	Covid-19-VLS	1,170	2.98	0.72	2.70	0.65	−0.28	2.84 *	-
2 - Biasio et al. Italy²⁶	Covid-19-VLS	885	2.92	0.7	3.27	0.54	0.35	3.10 *	Interactive-critical vs Functional VL: p < .001
3 - Biasio et al. Italy⁴⁰	Covid-19-VLS	160	2.99	0.63	3.38	0.46	0.39	3.19 *	Inter-critical VL higher in Jan 2021 than Jun 2020 (p = .021)
4 -Bulca Acar et al. Turkey⁴¹	Covid-19-VLS	388	3.02	0.81	2.92	0.71	−0.1	2.95	-
5 - Correa-Rodriguez et al. Spain⁴³	HLVa	319	2.59	0.74	3.07	0.6	0.48	2.83 *	-
6 - Durmus et al. Turkey³⁶	Covid-19-VLS	596	2.4	0.75	2.6	0.69	0.2	2.54	-
7 - Engelbrecht et al. South Africa⁴⁵ 8 - Engelbrecht et al. South Africa	Covid-19-VLS	4,190	2.95	0.77	3.45	0.51	0.51	3.21 *	Vaccinated persons	Unpublished data, kindly provided by the Author
	Covid-19-VLS	6,275	2.77	0.81	3.26	0.58	0.51	3.02 *	Unvaccinated persons	Unpublished data, kindly provided by the Author
9 - Gendler et al. Israel⁷⁴ 10 - Gendler et al. Israel	Covid-19-VLS	366	3.27	0.61	2.86	0.66	−0.41	3.07	Parents intending to vaccinate their children
9 - Gendler et al. Israel⁷⁴ 10 - Gendler et al. Israel	Covid-19-VLS	154	3.18	0.60	2.80	0.62	−0.38	2.99	Parents not intending to vaccinate their children
11 - Gusar et al. Croatia⁴⁷	Covid-19-VLS	1,227	2.86	0.71	2.12	0.75	−0.74	2.49 *	p < .001 Interactive-critical vs Functional VL
12 - Khiari et al. Tunisia⁴⁸	Covid-19-VLS	200	3.2	1	1.7 §	0.9	−1.5 §	2.45 *	§ outlierp = .026 and p = .008, Grubb’s test, respectively
13 - Kittipimpanon et al. Thailand⁴⁹	Covid-19-VLS	408	2.88	0.68	3.34	0.49	0.46	3.19	-
14 - Maki et al. Japan⁵²	Covid-19-VLS	1,519	2.65	0.73	2.96	0.62	0.31	2.81 *	-
15 - Maneesriwongul et al. Thailand⁵³ 16 - Maneesriwongul et al. Thailand	Covid-19-VLS	500	2.78	0.73	3.39	0.51	0.61	3.19	Participants in Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
	Covid-19-VLS	502	2.87	0.69	3.32	0.53	0.45	3.17	Participants in Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
17 - Takahashi et al. Japan⁵⁷ 18 - Takahashi et al. Japan	Covid-19-VLS	1,639	2.62	0.75	2.76	0.61	0.14	2.69 *	Pregnant women
17 - Takahashi et al. Japan⁵⁷ 18 - Takahashi et al. Japan	Covid-19-VLS	5,688	2.62	0.77	2.69	0.62	0.07	2.66 *	Mothers of young children
19 - Yadete et al USA⁵⁸ 20 - Yadete et al USA	HLVa	1,322	3.10	0.75	3.10°	0.60	0	3.1 *	Non-hesitant persons, °=communicative literacy score
19 - Yadete et al USA⁵⁸ 20 - Yadete et al USA	HLVa	816	2.61	0.74	2.70°	0.66	0.09	2.66 *	Hesitant persons, ° =communicative literacy score
21 - Yilmaz et al. Turkey⁵⁹	Covid-19-VLS	391	2.41	0.58	2.99	0.55	0.58	2.8	-
22 -Yuksekol et al. Turkey³⁵	Covid-19-VLS	609	2.61	0.7	2.94	0.61	0.33	2.83	-
Mean		1333	*2.83 ^*	0.25	*2.92 ^*	0.42	0.09	2.88	^ p = .1305, Wilcoxon
Median, tertiles		603	2.87, 2.64–2.96	-	2.95, 2.78–3.13	-	0.08	2.91, 2.8–3.07	--

*: Total VL scores were calculated using the functional and interactive critical scores reported in the respective studies.

^: Excluding the outlier, functional mean score was 2.81 ± 0.24, and interactive-critical 2.98 ± 0.33 (p = .0502, paired samples t-test); percentile distribution did not change (N = 7 in the lower tertile for both subscales); the distribution of the functional VL data was normal (Shapiro-Wilk p = .5925), while the distribution of the interactive VL data became normal when the outlying value was excluded (Shapiro-Wilk p = .222).