Skip to main content
PMC home page
Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Jul 5:10.1002/jcop.22642. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22642

The validation of the Arabic version of the Coronavirus‐2019 Phobia Scale (C19P‐SA) and individual differences in coronaphobia experiences among an Arabic population

Abdelsalam Alnaddaf 1, Mustafa Baloğlu 2,✉
PMCID: PMC8427111  PMID: 34219236

Abstract

The current study adapted the Coronavirus 19 Phobia Scale into Arabic and tested the psychometric properties of the adapted version on 469 Arabic‐speaking individuals (mean age = 29.57 years old; SD = 10.39; range = 9–71 years old). After confirmatory analysis found supporting evidence for the four‐factor structure, consequent analysis on convergent and discriminant validity and reliability of the Arabic version are also supported. A 2 × 2 between‐groups factorial multivariate analysis of variance was used to investigate individual differences in coronaphobia. Results show that there is no significant interaction effect between gender and marital status, λ = 0.973, F (8,460) = 1600, p = 0.121, partial η 2 = 0. 014; however, the main effect for gender is statistically significant, λ = 0.925, F (4,464) = 9.367, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.075, power = 1.000, where women score higher than men on all coronaphobia factors. In addition, the main effect for marital status is also significant, λ = 0.923, F (4,464) = 4.701, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.039, power = 0.998, where singles score higher than married couples on only two coronaphobia factors: Psychological and economic. Based on the findings, we conclude that the effects of coronaphobia have similarities across nations as well as differences unique to the Arabic populations.

Keywords: Arabic, C19P‐SA, coronaphobia, COVID‐19, psychometric properties

1. INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) started in Wuhan, China, and was later declared as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March of 2020 (WHO, 2020). The unprecedented pandemic quickly became a threat to the entire world, created chaos, and caused horror that affected various life affairs. As of May 2021, 426,384 people had been infected, 7072 people had in Saudi Arabia; 722,754 infected, 9203 died in Jordan; 240,927 infected, 14,091 in Egypt; and 514,670 infected, 9091 in Morocco (Wordometer, 2021) among some of the Arabic‐speaking nations. As these numbers indicate, serious problems exist in this part of the world, even though preventive measures are put into effect to control the spread of the virus, including but not limited to, wearing muzzle face, self‐isolation equipped with excess food, contact tracing, social restrictions, traveling restrictions, and lockdowns (Abd ElHafeez et al., 2021; Alyami et al., 2020; Juchnowicz et al., 2021; WHO, 2020).

The fear of COVID‐19 and preventive health measures imposed by governments around the world have had dire economic consequences, including a drastic decline in the industrial, agricultural, trade, and tourism sectors, which affected the social, emotional, and psychological human spheres of lives dramatically to the extent that the world before coronavirus is not the same afterward (Alshayban et al., 2020; Alyami et al., 2020; Fenwick et al., 2021; Xiong et al., 2020; Yildirim et al., 2021). These social and psychological impacts include fear of lack of food, stress, tension, anxiety, depression, frustration, phobia, dysfunction of the nervous system, and uncertainty which appeared in an escalating and significant way during the outbreak of the corona pandemic (BinDhim et al., 2020; Juchnowicz et al., 2021).

The presence of these grave psychological effects urged experts and academics to research and evaluate these effects to help develop successful mechanisms and means to mitigate the catastrophic effects of the pandemic (Alsudias & Rayson, 2020; Yildirim et al., 2021). Moreover, the need for research stems from the importance of realizing how people deal with the pandemic and understanding procedures taken by the governments and authorities. These are essential to manage and alleviate people's fears and help them solve their economic, social, and emotional complications, and ensure the wellbeing and continuity of lives in tranquility and security (Javakhishvili et al., 2020; WHO, 2020).

With increasing research on the COVID‐19 pandemic, studies focused on designing measurement tools to assess the emotional and psychological complications related to COVID‐19 (Chandu et al., 2020; Cortez et al., 2020; Nikčević & Spada, 2020). For example, Ahorsu et al. (2020) designed a unidimensional scale (the COVID‐19 Anxiety Syndrome Scale) that consists of seven items and to measure the fear levels due to COVID‐19. This scale has satisfactory psychometric properties and is translated to different languages (e.g., Alyami et al., 2020). In addition, Taylor et al. (2020) designed a 36‐item COVID Stress Scales (CSS) to measure stress among people with anxiety disorders during the pandemic. This scale includes danger and contamination fears, fear about economic consequences, xenophobia, compulsive checking and reassurance‐seeking, and traumatic stress symptoms. Developed in Canada and the United States, the CSS shows reliability and validity properties. Feng et al. (2020) designed the COVID‐19‐related psychological distress in healthy public (CORPD) to assess suspicion, anxiety, and fear. The 14‐item scale and two dimensions have significant structure validity and acceptable internal consistency reliability. Finally, Arpaci et al. (2020) developed the COVID‐19 Phobia Scale (C19P‐S), which has 20 items and four subscales: Psychological, Somatic, Economic, and Social. This scale has significant validity and reliability and translated into different languages such as English, Korean, Russian, Japanese, and French (Arpaci et al., 2021; Bilgic et al., 2021; Seong et al., 2021).

However, limited research has been conducted in the Arab countries, which makes it difficult for governments to make decisions, understand people's needs, help solve their problems, and prepare the process based on scientific data (Alkhamees et al., 2020; BinDhim et al., 2020). Consequently, the lack of research and ongoing, intertwined, and hazardous effects of the corona pandemic show an urgent need for research in the Arab world using standardized measures and tools. None among the existing tools was translated into Arabic language or used in the Arab countries, except the fear of COVID‐19 Scale (Ahorsu et al., 2020), which was adapted and used in Saudi Arabia by Alyami et al. (2020). Therefore, there is an urgent need in the Arab countries to develop or adapt and use a multidimensional scale to assess the psychological, somatic, social, and economic impact of the pandemic. Thus, the purpose of this study was to develop a psychometrically sound assessment instrument for assessing the levels of coronaphobia for the Arabic‐speaking populations and describe the coronaphobia levels of an Arabic‐speaking population.

2. METHODS

2.1. Sample

The C19P‐SA will be used in the Arabic populations; therefore, the population of the study was people whose native language was Arabic. As a result of the convenient sampling method used, the sample included 469 people from various cities and regions of Jordan (mean age = 29.57 years old; SD = 10.39; range = 9–71 years old). In the group, 25.2% responded that they had been infected with COVID‐19 (n = 118) and 9.2% had a chronic disease (n = 43). Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics on the demographic variables collected in this study. Data were obtained by an online survey platform (Qualtrics). Participants took part in the study willingly without any compensation. The research was approved by the university's Institutional Review Board (26.03.2020‐E.9480).

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics (N = 469)

n %
Gender
Man 254 54.2
Woman 215 45.8
Marital status
Married 155 33
Single 249 53.1
Other 65 13.9
Any chronic disease (other than COVID)
Yes 43 9.2
No 426 90.8
Diagnosed with COVID19
Yes 118 25.2
No 351 74.8
Lost someone close due to COVID‐19
Yes 304 64.8
No 165 35.2
Education
No formal education 1 0.2
Primary school 2 0.4
Secondary school 8 1.7
High school degree 17 3.6
College degree 329 70.1
Graduate degree 112 23.9
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: COVID‐19, coronavirus disease 2019.

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. The COVID‐19 Phobia Scale (C19P‐S)

The scale is both a paper‐pencil and online administered instrument with 20 items. The scale items are rated on a 5‐point Likert scale and form four distinct but related subscales: Psychological, Somatic, Social, and Economic (Arpaci et al., 2020). The original scale has adequate psychometric properties in several languages, such as English (Arpaci et al., 2021), Indonesian (Anggraeni et al., 2021), Korean (Bilgic et al., 2021), and Persian (Khosravani et al., 2021). Additional adaptations into Arabic, Chinese, German, Greek, French, Japanese Russian, and Spanish are currently in process.

2.2.2. The State Anxiety Inventory (SAI)

The SAI was developed to measure transitory‐emotional reactions and is a part of the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al., 1970). Twenty items measure feelings of apprehension, tension, nervousness, and worry about the current situation (i.e., state anxiety). A 4‐point Likert scale, ranging from “Not at All (1)” to “Very Much So (4),” asks respondents to rate the degree to which each item indicates their current feelings. Higher scores indicate higher levels of transitory anxiety. Abdel‐Khalek (1989) provided validity and reliability information on the Arabic version of the SAI.

2.3. Procedure

First, three Arabic‐speaking‐bilingual language experts independently translated the original 20 items to Arabic. Second, another group of five Arabic‐native‐bilingual experts examined the translated items for translation accuracy and cultural suitability. Third, three different Arabic‐native‐bilingual experts back‐translated the Arabic items back to the original. Fourth, the back‐translated and original items were compared and evaluated for linguistic and contextual fit by three Arabic‐native‐bilingual experts; thus, a draft of the Arabic version was achieved and administered to a small group of Arabic‐speaking natives as a pilot study. Based on the feedback received during the pilot study, a few corrections were made. Finally, a set of demographic questions and the Arabic version of the COVID‐19 Phobia Scale (C19P‐SA; see supplement A) was administered to the sample using an online survey system (Qualtrics).

Data were screened for the assumptions of parametric statistics. Normality, homogeneity of variances, and linearity assumptions for each cell were tested at univariate, bivariate, and multivariate level. To test four dependent variables (i.e., Psychological, Somatic, Social, and Economic) simultaneously, a between‐subjects factorial multivariate analysis of covariance was used with a non‐orthogonal design.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Reliability

Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the 20‐item Arabic version is 0.92, internal consistencies for the subscales ranged from 0.752 to 0.824 (see Table 2). Cronbach's alpha coefficient for State Anxiety Inventory (SAI; Spielberger et al., 1970) is 0.92. The analyses show that data are normally distributed (Table 2). Descriptive statistics of the study variables are in Table 2.

Table 2.

Descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients for the study variables (N = 469)

Study variables Mean SD Skewness (SE = 0.113) Kurtosis (SE = 0.225) α
Psychological (n = 6) 17.91 5.11 0.205 0.013 0.824
Somatic (n = 5) 9.83 3.30 0.776 1.002 0.771
Social (n = 5) 13.53 3.88 0.219 0.067 0.752
Economic (n = 4) 9.52 3.10 0.416 0.056 0.769
State Anxiety (n = 20) 41.10 11.99 −0.042 −0.034 0.918
Open in a new tab

Note: In parentheses are a number of items in each respected scale.

Abbreviations: SE, standard error; SD, standard deviation.

3.2. Convergent and discriminant validity

The Arabic version was investigated in terms of convergent validity and discriminant validity (Table 3). Results show that average variance extracted and composite reliability coefficients indicate acceptable convergent validity and discriminant validity evidence, respectively. Additionally, convergent validity evidence is found by significant correlations among the factors (p < 0.01).

Table 3.

Convergent and discriminant validity

CV DV Psychological Somatic Social Economic
Psychological 0.829 0.454
Somatic 0.741 0.370 0.630*
Social 0.741 0.366 0.780* 0.651*
Economic 0.767 0.454 0.652* 0.664* 0.681*
State anxiety 0.399* 0.419* 0.384* 0.428*
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: CV, Convergent validity coefficients: DV, Discriminant validity coefficients.

*

p < 0.001.

3.3. Structural validity

Structural validity of the Arabic coronavirus‐19 phobia model was tested by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which confirmed the model, χ 2(df = 157, N = 469) = 422.521, χ 2/df = 2.691, N = 469, p < 0.001. Table 4 shows various indices for the model fit. Figure 1 shows the loadings of the model's four factors. As the figure shows, variance accounted for by the factors ranged from 0.44 to 0.61.

Table 4.

Model fit indices for the measurement models and the structural model

Fit Indices Psychological Somatic Social Economic StructuralModel Reference Values
GFI ≥0.986 ≥0.994 ≥0.989 ≥0.997 ≥0.915 ≥0.90
AGFI ≥0.966 ≥0.958 ≥0.945 ≥0.984 ≥0.886 ≥0.80
NFI ≥0.977 ≥0.988 ≥0.974 ≥0.994 ≥0.899 ≥0.90
CFI ≥0.986 ≥0.992 ≥0.979 ≥0.998 ≥0.934 ≥0.90
TLI ≥0.977 ≥0.959 ≥0.930 ≥0.994 ≥0.920 ≥0.90
IFI ≥0.986 ≥0.992 ≥0.979 ≥0.998 ≥0.934 ≥0.90
RMSEA ≤0.055 ≤0.070 ≤0.088 ≤0.032 ≤0.060 ≤0.08
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: AGFI, Adjusted Goodness of Fit; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; GFI, Goodness of Fit Index; IFI, Incremental Fit; NFI, Normed Fit Index; RMSEA, Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation; TLI, Tucker‐Lewis Fit Index.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

The measurement model

3.4. Causal comparative between‐groups analyses

The 2 × 2 between‐groups factorial multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was investigated for the main effect of gender and marital status and interaction effect between gender and marital status on the C19P‐SA subscales. Before the multivariate analyses; normality, homogeneity, linearity, and multicollinearity were tested A nonorthogonal design was used with SPSS MANOVA (SPSS Inc., 2000). The homogeneity of variance‐covariance assumption was violated, further investigations indicated that the violation of this assumption was not problematic (Tabachnick & Fidel, 2020).

Results show that there is no significant interaction effect, λ = 0.973, F (8,460) = 1600, p = 0.121, partial η 2 = 0. 014. However, MANOVA shows that the main effect for gender is statistically significant, λ = 0.925, F (4,464) = 9.367, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.075, power = 1.000, where women score higher than men on all factors, psychological, F (1,467) = 18.154, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.037; somatic, F (1,467) = 14.288, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.030; social, F (1,467) = 3.492, p = 0.048, partial η 2 = 0.008, economic, F (1,467) = 22.383, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.046. In addition, the main effect for marital status is also statistically significant, λ = 0.923, F (4,464) = 4.701, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.039, power = 0.998. Singles score higher than married couples on two factors: Psychological, F (2,466) = 5.305, p = 0.005, partial η 2 = 0.022 and economic, F (2,466) = 13.149, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.053; However, They not significant different on the somatic, F (2,466) = 2.773, p = 0.063 or social factors, F (2,466) = 1.561, p = 0.211.

COVID‐19 phobia levels across other study variables were tested by MANOVA. There is no omnibus difference between those who have a chronic disease and who do not have any chronic disease, λ = 0.176, F (4,464) = 0.528, p = 0.715 or between those who are diagnosed with COVID‐19 and who are not diagnosed with COVID‐19, λ = 0.992, F (4,464) = 0.943, p = 0.439. However, MANOVA shows that the differences between people who lost someone close due to COVID‐19 score significantly higher than those who have not lost anyone close, λ = 0.929, F (4,464) = 8.825, p = 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.071, power = 0.999. Post hoc analyses show that individuals who lost someone close to them due to COVID‐19 score higher on three out of the scale's four factors: Psychological, F (1,467) = 23.557, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.048; somatic, F (1,467) = 16.381, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.034: and social, F (1,467) = 13.996, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.029. There is no significant difference between the groups on the economic factor, F (1,467) = 20.825, p = 0.141. Finally, MANOVA shows that no significant difference based on the educational level of the participants, λ = 0.951, F (4,464) = 1.165, p = 0.276.

4. DISCUSSION

The current study translated, adapted, and investigated the psychometric properties of the C19P‐S into Arabic‐speaking populations (C19P‐SA). Initial results indicate that the adaptation is successful as evidenced by observed acceptable validity and reliability coefficients. Construct validity confirms the four‐subscales of the C19P‐SA and convergent and discriminant validity coefficients further support the adapted scale. In addition, the C19P‐SA items are internally consistent. Moreover, results show that the C19P‐SA differentiates between individuals who lost close people to them and those who have not on several factors, which lend support to the scale's discriminant validity; however, the effect size of the differences are minimal and should be interpreted with care. Nonetheless, based on all validity and reliability findings, we conclude that the C19P‐SA may be used to assess COVID‐19 phobia levels in Arabic‐speaking populations. However, the current results came from one of the many Arabic‐speaking populations (i.e., Jordan); therefore, further investigations are warranted across other Arabic‐speaking nations as there may be subcultural differences.

The confirmed four‐factor structure of the Arabic version is found to be similar to the original (Arpaci et al., 2020), English (Arpaci et al., 2021), Persian (Khosravani et al., 2021), and Korean (Bilgic et al., 2021) versions; however, it is slightly different from the Indonesian version (Anggraeni et al., 2021). Even though cross‐cultural differences exist in phobic reactions, we believe that because coronavirus is affecting the entire world simultaneously, effects may be shared with less than usual invariably across the different parts of the world. In addition, the consistency of the items and factors of the original Coronavirus 19 Phobia Scale across cultures is partly because the scale followed the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, DSM–5, American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

As stated by the DSM–5 (APA, 2013), women reported higher phobic reactions on all scale factors. In addition to supporting the validity of the Arabic version, these results indicate that women, in general, are more vulnerable in terms of coronavirus. More complicated effects of marital status may partly be attributed to cultural the structure of the population. Similarly, Bilgic et al. (2021) found a significant relationship between the level of education and coronaphobia. Individuals with more education showed higher coronaphobia reactions in a Korean sample; however, this study found no significant difference based on the level of education, λ = 0.951, F (4,464) = 1.165, p = 0.276. Similar to Khosravani et al. (2021), we also found that coronaphobia is significantly related to transitory anxiety. However, these results do not indicate causality between the two conditions. We still do not know whether coronavirus phobia triggered anxiety reactions or vice versa.

Finally, a few limitations of the current research need to be addressed at this point. First, the study employed a descriptive design and therefore significant relationships between the subscales or differences among the levels of independent variables do not imply causality. Second, the sample was obtained through the convenience sampling method; therefore, results can only be generalized to populations that share similar characteristics to this sample. Third, even though the Arabic peninsula shares many similarities, there may be subcultural differences among various Arabic‐speaking countries; thus, future studies should investigate other Arabic‐speaking nations.

ETHICS STATEMENT

Ethical Approval “All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.” All procedures conducted were approved by the Ethics Committee of KMU (26.03.2020‐E.9480).

PEER REVIEW

The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1002/jcop.22642

Supporting information

Supporting information.

Click here for additional data file. (67.5KB, docx)

Alnaddaf, A. , Baloğlu, M. (2021). The validation of the Arabic version of the Coronavirus‐2019 Phobia Scale (C19P‐SA) and individual differences in coronaphobia experiences among an Arabic population. Journal of Community Psychology, 1–10. 10.1002/jcop.22642

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

REFERENCES

  1. Abd ElHafeez, S. , Shaaban, R. , Elbarazi, I. , ElMakhzangy, R. , Aly, M. O. , Alnagar, A. , Yocoub, M. , El Saeh, H. M. , Eltaweel, N. , Alqutub, S. T. , & Ghazy, R. M. (2021). Arabic validation and cross‐cultural adaptation of the 5C Scale for assessment of COVID‐19 vaccines' psychological antecedents. MedRxiv. 10.1101/2021.02.03.21251059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abdel‐Khalek, A. (1989). The development and validation of an Arabic form of the STAI: Egyptian results. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(3), 277–285. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ahorsu, D. K. , Lin, C. Y. , Imani, V. , Saffari, M. , Griffiths, M. D. , & Pakpour, A. H. (2020). The Fear of COVID‐19 Scale: Development and initial validation. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1–9. 10.1007/s11469-020-00270-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Alkhamees, A. , Alrashed, S. , Alzunaydi, A. , Almohimeed, A. , & Aljohani, M. (2020). The psychological impact of COVID‐19 pandemic on the general population of Saudi Arabia. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 102, 52192. 10.1016/j.comppsych.2020.152192 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Alsudias, L. , & Rayson, P. (2020). COVID‐19 and Arabic Twitter: How can Arab world governments and public health organizations learn from social media? Proceedings of the 1st workshop on NLP for COVID‐19 at ACL. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.nlpcovid19-acl.16
  6. Alyami, M. , Henning, M. , Krägeloh, C. U. , & Alyami, H. (2020). Psychometric evaluation of the Arabic Version of the Fear of COVID‐19 Scale. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1–14. 10.1007/s11469-020-00316-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. American Psychiatric Association . (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association. 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Anggraeni, A. D. , Pentury, H. J. , & Rangka, I. B. (2021). Providing a psychological scale to measure COVID‐19 phobia in the Indonesian version: A brief report on validation of C19P‐S via Rasch Analysis. Teraputik: Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling, 4, 471–481. 10.26539/teraputik.43586 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Arpaci, I. , Karataş, K. , & Baloğlu, M. (2020). The development and initial tests for the psychometric properties of the COVID‐19 Phobia Scale (C19P‐S). Personality and Individual Differences, 164, 110108. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Arpaci, I. , Karataş, K. , & Haktanir, A. (2021). COVID‐19 phobia in the United States: Validation of the COVID‐19 Phobia Scale (C19P‐SE). Death Studies, 1‐7. 10.1080/07481187.2020.1848945 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bilgic, S. , Baloglu, M. , & Tokalilar, S. (2021). Adapting and validating the Coronavirus‐19 Phobia Scale (C19P‐S) in Korea. Death Studies, 1–7. 10.1080/07481187.2021.1924897 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. BinDhim, N. F. , Althumiri, N. A. , Basyouni, M. H. , Alageel, A. A. , Alghnam, S. , Al‐Qunaibet, A. M. , Almubarak, R. A. , Aldhukair, S. , & Ad‐Dabbagh, Y. A. (2020). Mental health surveillance system for the general population during the Covid‐19 pandemic: Protocol for a multiwave cross‐sectional survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 9(11), e23748. 10.2196/23748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chandu, V. C. , Marella, Y. , Panga, G. S. , Pachava, S. , & Vadapalli, V. (2020). Measuring the impact of COVID‐19 on mental health: A scoping review of the existing scales. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 42(5), 421–427. 10.1177/0253717620946439 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cortez, P. A. , Joseph, S. J. , Das, N. , Bhandari, S. S. , & Shoib, S. (2020). Tools to measure the psychological impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic: What do we have in the platter? Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 53, 102371. 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Feng, L. S. , Dong, Z. J. , Yan, R. Y. , Wu, X. Q. , Zhang, L. , Ma, J. , & Zeng, Y. (2020). Psychological distress in the shadow of the COVID‐19 pandemic: Preliminary development of an assessment scale. Psychiatry Research, 291, 113202. 10.1016/jpsychres.2020.113202 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fenwick, M. , McCahery, J. A. , & Vermeulen, E. P. M. (2021). Will the world ever be the same after COVID‐19? Two lessons from the first global crisis of a digital age. European Business Organization Law Review, 22, 125–145. 10.1007/s40804-020-00194-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Javakhishvili, J. D. , Ardino, V. , Bragesjö, M. , Kazlauskas, E. , Olff, M. , & Schäfer, I. (2020). Trauma‐informed responses in addressing public mental health consequences of the COVID‐19 pandemic. European Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, 11(1), 1780782. 10.1080/20008198.2020.1780782 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Juchnowicz, D. , Baj, J. , Forma, A. , Karakuła, K. , Sitarz, E. , Bogucki, J. , & Karakula‐Juchnowicz, H. (2021). The outbreak of SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic and the well‐being of Polish students: The risk factors of the emotional distress during COVID‐19 lockdown. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10, 944. 10.3390/jcm10050944 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Khosravani, V. , Ardestani, S. M. S. , Bastan, F. S. , & Baloğlu, M. (2021). The Persian version of the COVID‐19 Phobia Scale (Persian‐C19P‐S) and the differences in COVID‐19 related phobic reactions in patients with anxiety disorders. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1–17. 10.1007/s11469-021-00523-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Nikčević, A. V. , & Spada, M. M. (2020). The COVID‐19 Anxiety Syndrome Scale: Development and psychometric properties. Psychiatry Research, 292, 113322. 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Seong, M. , Lee, M. , Kim, I. , & Kang, M. (2021). Validation of the Korean version of the COVID‐19 Phobia Scale (K‐C19PS) . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 3747. 10.3390/ijerph18073747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Spielberger, C. D. , Gorsuch, R. L. , & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press. [Google Scholar]
  23. Tabachnick, B. G. , & Fidel, L. S. (2020). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. [Google Scholar]
  24. Taylor, S. , Landry, C. , Paluszek, M. , Fergus, T. A. , McKay, D. , & Asmundson, G. J. (2020). Development and initial validation of the COVID Stress Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 72. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102232 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. World Health Organization . (2020). WHO Director‐General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID‐19. https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-openingremarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19%2D%2D-11-march-2020
  26. Worldometer COVID 19 Data . (2021). https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country
  27. Xiong, J. , Lipsitz, O. , Nasri, F. , Lui, L. , Gill, H. , Phan, L. , Chen‐Li, D. , Iacobucci, M. , Ho, R. , Majeed, A. , & McIntyre, R. S. (2020). Impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 277, 55–64. 10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Yildirim, M. , Arslan, G. , & Alkahtani, A. M. (2021). Do fear of COVID‐19 and religious coping predict depression, anxiety, and stress among the Arab population during health crisis? Death Studies, 8, 1–7. 10.1080/07481187.2021.1882617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supporting information.

Click here for additional data file. (67.5KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Journal of Community Psychology are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES