Current Psychology (2022) 41:5612–5620

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02552-3

Turkish validity and reliability of coronavirus anxiety scale

Nurten Arslan Işik1 · Gülden Küçükakça Çelik2 · Gülsün Ayran1

Accepted: 18 November 2021 / Published online: 15 January 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
The Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS) was developed to differentiate individuals who were functionally impaired by anxiety
about COVID-19 from those anxious, but not disabled by their emotional reactions to the disease. The aim of the present
study is to validate the Turkish version of the CAS. The study was carried out in two stages. In the first phase, the valid-
ity and reliability study of the scale was conducted with 95 people. The single-factor structure of the scale was confirmed
with exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis results. Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient
was found to be 0.86. In the second stage; the data were collected using the Turkish version of CASand Herth Hope scale.
The scales were applied to 720 people. It was determined that there was a statistically significant relationship between total
CAS scores and the Herth Hope Index. These findings revealed that the CAS was a valid and reliable measurement tool for
evaluating the anxiety levels of individuals.

Keywords  Anxiety · Coronavirus (COVID-19) · Mental health · Validity · Reliability

Introduction physical health but also has both short and long-term
effects upon the mental health (Almond & Mazumder,
COVID-19 is a type of virus from beta-coronavirus fam- 2005). The first COVID-19 case diagnosed in Turkey was
ily including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. This virus announced by the Ministry of Health on 10 March 2020
appeared in Wuhan Province of China in 2019 and has (Şahin, 2020). With the increase at the number of cases,
affected the whole world in a very short time. It was the government had to take many protective measures,
declared as an international urgent public health problem especially obligatory quarantine as the leading, for the
by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 30 Janu- people turning back from abroad. Taking strict measures
ary 2020. As of 4 October 2021, 234 609 003 confirmed to reduce the risks and impact of the disease, the forced
cases and 4 797 368 deaths were reported worldwide closure of schools and the suspension of all unnecessary
(WHO, 2021). The clinical features of COVID-19 can production and commercial activities, separation from
vary from asymptomatic to severe acute respiratory dis- family members and friends, inability to meet daily needs,
tress syndrome and multi-organ dysfunction. COVID-19 and salary cuts and social isolation increased the anxiety
virus which causes respiratory infection not only threatens of people about how they would react individually and
collectively (Lee, 2020; Taylor, 2019).
Pandemics are known to cause many psychological
* Nurten Arslan Işik disorders such as anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders
[email protected] (Balaratnasingam & Janca, 2006). People's mental health
Gülden Küçükakça Çelik is negatively affected during the pandemic period due to
[email protected] the reasons such as desperation, obscurity, social isola-
Gülsün Ayran tion, restrictions and quarantine (Lee, 2020; Uysa & Eren,
[email protected] 2020). As result of many studies, it has been observed
1
Faculty of Health Sciences, Erzincan Binali Yıldırım that COVID-19 has created high level of psychological
University, Erzincan, Turkey problems on people. For example, in a recent large-scale
2
Selma Vefa Küçük Faculty of Health Sciences, Nevşehir study upon people who were highly susceptible to coro-
Hacı Bektaşi Veli University, Nevşehir, Turkey navirus infection, the prevalence rate of traumatic stress

13
 Current Psychology (2022) 41:5612–5620 5613

was determined to be 73.4%, depression prevalence was with high level of hope tend to have better psychological,
50.7% and anxiety was determined to be 44.7%. 36.1% of social and physical well-being, in general (Schofield et al.,
the participants in the study stated that they had insomnia 2016; Wang et al., 2017). Therefore, hope is considered to
problems (Liu et al., 2020). be an important variable with a powerful effect in reducing
As result of the researchers carried out on the psy- anxiety. However, there is not enough information about
chological effect of pandemics, it has been revealed that the role of hope on the anxiety felt during the COVID-19
individuals have shown symptoms of pandemic anxiety, pandemic.
experienced contamination and health anxiety, and at the Health professionals must gauge patients’ psychologi-
same time that these people have been considerably prone cal function to help them manage high levels of anxiety.
to commit suicide (Wheaton et al., 2012; Yip et al., 2010). Although professionals are aware of growing fear and anxi-
Although the symptoms individuals have shown during ety, they must use objective measures to assess it. In this
COVID-19 pandemic have generally been similar to anxi- regard, Lee (2020) developed the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale
ety, the researchers have suggested that many people show (CAS), with strong psychometric properties, that assess
symptoms of anxiety during viral pandemics (Asmund- physiologically-based anxiety and information about the
son & Taylor, 2020; Lee, 2020). It has been reported in coronavirus. We found that the CAS can identify factors that
the literature that people have experienced extreme fear exacerbate anxiety during the pandemic and allow us to plan
and anxiety about becoming infected despite taking safety psychosocial interventions in advance for at-risk groups.
precautions and obeying social distance rules, and have The CAS measures individuals’ physiologically-based
constantly been worried about family members who are reactions of fear and anxiety to coronavirus related infor-
sick or dying (Lee, 2020; Wang et al., 2020). In a previ- mation. It has solid psychometric properties and has been
ous study, it was reported that approximately 10% to 30% validated. It is believed that the CAS can help identify fac-
of the society was very worried about the possibility of tors that influence fear during the pandemic period and plan
contracting the virus during an influenza epidemic (Rubin psychosocial interventions for at-risk groups in advance.
et al., 2010). Thus, we aimed to validate the CAS, which was originally
People with high level of health anxiety are more sen- developed in English, in Turkish with Turkish adults.
sitive to interpreting simple bodily symptoms. They con-
stantly look for evidences that they are infected. Thus, the
situations such as unnecessary occupation of health cent- Methods
ers, excessive washing of hands and social withdrawal can
have negative consequences for both the individual and the Participants and Procedure
society in which they live. Misinterpreting harmless bodily
symptoms or changes as signs of infection can cause people A cross-sectional research was carried out in May—
to worry and panic unnecessarily (Taylor, 2019). In a study August 2020 with the Turkish population residing in Tur-
carried out with 1,210 people in China in the first months key reached via electronic media. The survey link created
of the pandemic, it was determined that whereas 13.8% of through Google forms was sent to the participants via
the participants had mild depressive symptoms, 4.3% had social media, WhatsApp groups and e-mail, and the par-
severe symptoms (Van Bortel et. al., 2016). In one study, ticipants were asked to fill out and share the survey link. In
those functionally affected by coronavirus anxiety showed cultural adaptation studies, it is suggested for the sample
more hopelessness, suicidal ideation, religious crises, and size to be between 10 to 20 times more of the number of
were engaged in alcohol and substances, compared to those items in the scale in order to conduct psychometric analy-
who were not as affected (Lee, 2020). sis (Büyüköztürk, 2018). In order to carry out the validity
Psychosocial evaluations must be handled carefully, and reliability study of the scale, the sample number and
with exposure to infected sources, such as family mem- the number of items in the scale were × 19, and 95 adults
bers, and loss of loved ones, This creates physical distance, were reached.
economic loss, depression, psychosomatic symptoms, When the COVID -19 process is very challenging for
insomnia, and even domestic violence. Moreover, positive the individual, discouraging and anxiety-inducing interrup-
psychological forces that help individuals to cope with tions can occur. Hope, in times of depression and despair;
their anxieties should also be included in the psychosocial energies and lives fuel efforts to rebuild and cope. For one
evaluation. For example, hope that is considered among needs support to endure long-term uncertainties (Walsh,
the psychological strengths that individuals have enables 2020). Does holding on to hope in this process and main-
people solve problems when they encounter with stressful taining hope in the midst of uncertainty affect the indi-
situations and persist in crisis (Mirhosseini et al., 2020). vidual's level of anxiety and therefore their response to the
Many studies in the literature have revealed that individuals anxiety scale?

13
5614 Current Psychology (2022) 41:5612–5620

To answer this question, following the validity and reli- summing the scores of the answers given to each sub-
ability study of the CAS scale, 720 adult individuals were scale. The total score ranged from 0 to 90, and the total
reached who had Internet access and volunteered to partici- score for each sub-dimension varied between 0 and 30.
pate in the study, and they were asked to complete the CAS The Cronbach alpha coefficient of the scale was found to
and Herth Hope scales. be 0.84. In this study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient was
determined to be 0.92 (Aslan et al., 2006).

Data Collection Tools Data Analysis

Question Form The data obtained in the study were analyzed using SPSS
25 and AMOS 21 package software. SPSS package soft-
This section included items questioning some of the socio- ware and item analysis were used for reliability analysis,
demographic characteristics of individuals and the corona- explanatory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analy-
virus (COVID-19) pandemic process. sis with AMOS package software. "Cronbach alpha coef-
ficient" was calculated for internal consistency for deter-
Coronavirus Anxiety Scale ‑Turkish Version mining the level of reliability value of the developed scale.
(CAS‑Turkish Version) Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed deter-
mine the construct validity of the scale, and Confirmatory
The Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS) was developed by Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to test the confirm-
Sherman A. Lee (2020) to distinguish individuals who are ability of the structure appeared as result of EFA. Basic
functionally impaired by anxiety about COVID -19 from components technique was used to determine the factor
those who are anxious but not disabled by their emotional structure. Bartlett test was used to decide whether the data
responses to the disease. The tool including five-point Lik- were suitable for factor analysis, and Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
ert type answer choices, was rated on a five-point scale from (KMO) test was used for sampling adequacy. Subsequently,
0 (not at all) to 4 (almost every day) based on the experi- confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the con-
ences in the last two weeks. CAS cut-off score was 9. CAS struct validity. For the discrimination validity of the scale,
total score of 9 indicated dysfunctional anxiety associated the results of CR (Composite/Structure Reliability) and
with coronavirus. Cronbach Alpha Reliability Coefficient AVE (Average Variance Extracted) values ​​were analyzed.
of the scale was found to be 0.93 by Sherman A. Lee. In Pearson Correlation analysis was used to determine the
this study, cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient relationship between the two scales. The significance level
was found to be 0.86. In the second application of the study was accepted as 0.05.
conducted with different 720 people, the cronbach's alpha
was determined as 0.87. High scores on a particular item or
high total scale score could indicate anxiety symptoms that Results
required further evaluation or treatment of the individual
(Lee, 2020). Language Validity

Herth Hope Scale The original language of CAS scale is English. Accord-
ing to the author's knowledge, the scale has validity and
The scale was developed by Dr. Herth in order to deter- reliability studies in 25 different languages. In language
mine hope levels of individuals in (Herth, 1991), and validity study of the CAS scale, the English text created
the internal consistency coefficient was found to be 0.84 by the author of the scale was used. The language validity
adapting the scale into Turkish by Aslan et al. (2006). It process included the translation stages of the scale from
included totally 30 items. It was a four-point Likert-type English to Turkish and then from Turkish to English. In
scale that was answered as "I strongly disagree" (0 point), the first stage, the scale was translated from English to
"I rarely agree" (1 point), "I sometimes agree" (2 points) Turkish by 2 different linguists and an academician who
and "I strongly agree" (3 points) for each item. The scale knew both Turkish and English languages professionally.
​​
included 3 sub-dimensions as "Future," "Positive Readi- In the second stage, the scale, which was translated into
ness and Expectation" and "The Links between Himself Turkish, was combined into a single instrument combining
and His Surroundings." High scores taken from the scale three translations made by the committee including three
indicated that the level of hope was high, and the total members (three academic nurses with doctor titles) who
score of the scale was obtained summing the scores given knew both languages and reached an agreement on it. In the
to all items, and the sub-dimension score was obtained third stage, the text was translated into English by a native

13
 Current Psychology (2022) 41:5612–5620 5615

English translator who spoke both languages at the native Table 1  Exploratory factor analysis results related to coronavirus
level. The scale, which was translated back into English, anxiety scale (N = 95)
was compared with the original English scale, no change in Coronavirus anxiety Total item
meaning was observed in the scale items and the language scale correlation
validity of the scale was completed.
Item 1 0.767 0.637
Item 2 0.857 0.755
Item 3 0.830 0.719
Content Validity Item 4 0.800 0.682
Item 5 0.772 0.642
Davis technique was used for the content validity of the
Reliability 0.864
scale. After comparing the retranslated scale with its Eng-
Explained variance (%) 64.943
lish original, prepared Turkish version was assessed by five
Eigenvalue (Λ) 3.247
experts (4 Mental Health and Psychiatric Nursing and 1
Child Health and Diseases Nursing) in Turkey. Necessary KMO = 0.861; χ2(10) 
= 
767.751; Bartlett Test for Sphericity
changes were made regarding the grading criteria developed (p) = 0.000
for the measurement value of each item, and the Turkish
scale was finalized. According to the Davis technique, the
experts scored the suitability of the items as (1) “not suit- Table 2  Coronavirus anxiety scale first level multifactorial model
able,” (2) “somewhat suitable,” (3) “quite suitable” and confirmatory factor analysis fit indices (N = 95)
(4) “very suitable.” In this technique, the "content validity Good- Perfect fit criteria Acceptable fit Research finding
index" for the item was found to be 0.80 dividing the num- ness of fit criteria
ber of experts who marked (3) and (4) options by the total criteria
number of experts. CMIN/Df 0 ≤ χ2/df ≤ 3 3 ≤ χ2/df ≤ 5 2.306
GFI  ≥ 0.90  ≥ 0.85 0.987
Test–Retest Reliability CFI  ≥ 0.95  ≥ 0.90 0.991
RMSEA  ≤ 0.05  ≤ 0.08 0.060
Test–retest reliability was determined with Pearson's Mul- NFI  ≥ 0.95  ≥ 0.90 0.985
tiplication of Moments Correlation technique. When the IFI  ≥ 0.95  ≥ 0.90 0.991
relationship between the scores obtained in the test and
Brown and Cudeck, 1993; Meydan and Şeşen, 2011
the retest was analyzed, it was found that the relationship
between the two test scores (r:0.941) was positive and sta-
tistically significant (p < 0.05). According to this, it was reliability coefficient (0.864) of the answers given by the
possible to mention that the scale was not changing against participants indicated that the scale had a high degree of
time and was usable. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test was reliability (Table 1).
performed to test whether the sample size was suitable for According to the Confirmatory Factor Analysis, it was
factor analysis. KMO value was determined to be 0.861 as determined that the structural equation modeling results
result of the analysis. In accordance with this result, it was of the scale were significant at p = 0.000 level, and the
concluded that the sampling adequacy was “sufficient” for scale was associated with five items that in the scale and
the factor analysis. Furthermore, when Bartlett's Sphericity the single factor scale structure (Table 2). It was noticed
test results were analyzed, it was noticed that obtained chi- that the accepted values for fit indices were met in the fit
square value was acceptable (χ2(10) = 767.751; p < 0.01) index calculations. When looking at the goodness of fit
(Table 1). indexes of the coronavirus anxiety scale according to the
The five -item tool which aimed to measure the anxiety first level multi-factor analysis results, the indices were pos-
level of individuals participating in the study was developed sible to be mentioned as an acceptable level with values of
depending on a single theoretical dimension. Principal com- RMSEA 0.060; GFI 0.987; CFI 0.991; χ2 2.306 (p = 0.000)
ponents analysis was chosen as the factorization method in (Table 2).
order to reveal the factor pattern of the coronavirus anxi- The factor loads for the scale were presented in Table 3,
ety scale. In exploratory factor analysis, factor load values and the model for the first-level confirmatory factor analy-
were determined to be above 0.50. Factor loads were found sis of the coronavirus anxiety scale was presented in Fig. 1.
to be at the desired level and between 0.767 and 0.857. As could be seen, factor loads varied between 0.682 and
The single factor explained 64.943% of the total variance. 0.839. The factor loadings were noticed to be above 0.40.
Within this framework, the contribution of a defined fac- It was a desired criterion for a factor load to be at least
tor to the total variance was noticed to be sufficient. The 0.40 (Erefe, 2002; Polit & Beck, 2018). The combined

13
5616 Current Psychology (2022) 41:5612–5620

Table 3  Factor loads obtained as result of the confirmatory factor analysis performed for coronavirus anxiety scale (N = 95)
Factor Factor loads CR AVE

Coronavirus anxiety scale

1. I felt dizziness or weakness when I read or listened to the news related to coronavirus 0.682 0.920 0.597
2. I had trouble in falling asleep or maintaining sleep because I thought of coronavirus 0.839
3. I felt myself as paralyzed or frozen when I was subjected to the news about coronavirus or I thought about coro- 0.788
navirus
4. I lost my feeling of hunger when I was subjected to the news about coronavirus or I thought about coronavirus 0.747
5. I felt dizziness or stomach problems when I was subjected to the news about coronavirus or I thought about 0.686
coronavirus

and the future, positive readiness and expectation, the links

between himself and his surroundings, and the Herth Hope
scale (p < 0.01).

Discussion

The worldwide pandemic of COVID-19 has rapidly and

profoundly affected every aspect of daily life such as the
way people work, live, shop, socialize and plan for their
future, has caused panic and mental health problems for the
public and is possible to increase anxiety symptoms world-
Fig. 1  The model related to the first level confirmatory multifactorial wide (Fullana et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2020; Nguyen et al.,
analysis of coronavirus anxiety scale 2020). For that reason, this study was carried out to deter-
mine the effect of COVID-19 pandemic that caused public
health crisis on the mental health of the society and to adapt
reliability value of the implicit variables in the measure- CAS into Turkish language, specify the scale’s validity and
ment model should be higher than 0.70, and the average reliability, and to determine the effect of coronavirus-related
explained variance value should be higher than 0.50 (Hair anxiety on the level of hope. When the findings were ana-
et al., 2010). As result, the scale was determined to have lyzed, it was determined that the validity-reliability criteria
divergence validity. for the Turkish form of the scale were at an acceptable level
In Table 4, Hope Index and Total CAS scores of the indi- (Table 5).
viduals and the distributions of the scales related to demo- Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett Sphericity tests
graphical features were presented. It was determined that the were performed in order to test the suitability of the sam-
average age of the individuals participating in the study was ple size for the factor analysis. Whereas the values between
​​
31.64 ± 9.27, the average number of people living at home 0.5–1.0 were considered acceptable as KMO value, the val-
was 3.78 ± 1.62, 67.6% were women, 56% were married, ues below
​​ 0.5 indicated that factor analysis was not suitable
50.6% did not have children, 63.2% were employed, %85.7% for the data set (Altunışık et al., 2010). However, the mini-
of them did not have a chronic disease, 39.2% lived in the mum KMO value considered for a good factor analysis was
Eastern Anatolia Region, 52.5% of them had equal income expected to be higher than 0.8 (Anderson, 1988). The KMO
and expenditure, 99.3% of them were not diagnosed with coefficient of this study was found to be 0.86 (Table 1). The
COVID-19 and 97.1% of them did not have a family history KMO value was found to be 0.88 in the 11-item COVID 19
of COVID-19 (Table 4). Anxiety Syndrome scale developed by Nikčević and Spada
Pearson correlation coefficient between the total score (2020), and 0.88 in the 17-item Coronavirus Pandemic Anxi-
and subscale score from the Turkish Herth Hope scale, ety Scale (Bernardo et al., 2020). The KMO coefficient in
and the CAS scale were calculated as it was done in the the original scale was determined to be 0.98 (Lee, 2020).
original analysis of the CAS scale to support the construct The KMO value of the study in the original scale and other
validity. It was determined that there was a negative, and scales related to COVID 19 shows that the sample size is
statistically significant relationship between the CAS total suitable for factor analysis. When Bartlett's test results were
scores of the individuals who participated into the study analyzed, it was noticed that obtained chi-square value was

13
 Current Psychology (2022) 41:5612–5620 5617

Table 4  Evaluating hope index and CAS total scores of the partici- Table 5  Evaluating the correlation between CAS and Herth Hope
pants according to their demographical properties (N = 720) Index subdimensions’ total scores (N = 720)
n % Herth hope index CAS

Gender r p
Female 487 67.6 Sub-dimension of future -0.147 0.000**
Male 233 32.4 Sub-dimension of positive readiness and expecta- -0.029 0.439
Marital status tion
Married 403 56 Sub-dimension of the links between himself and -0.097 0.009**
Single 307 42.6 his surroundings
Divorced 10 1.4 Total -0.103 0.006**
Having a child **
 Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Yes 356 49.4
No 364 50.6
Status of employment
in practice for the factor load value in the literature, items
Yes 455 63.2
with a factor load of 0.40 and above were regarded and it
No 265 36.8
was stated that the load values between 0.30 and 0.59 were
Having a chronic disease
medium and the values between 0.60 and above were high
Yes 103 14.3
(Akgül, 2003; Aksakoğlu, 2001). According to the analysis
No 617 85.7
results performed in this study, it was determined that the
Residential area
factor loads were between 0.767 and 0.857 and the factor
Eastern anatolian region 282 39.2
load value was high.
Aegean region 52 7.2
It was found that the factor loads of all items were
Marmara region 96 13.3
over 0.40 and high in the scale which included five
Central Anatolia region 113 15.7
items and one sub-dimension. As result of the analyzes,
Mediterranean region 107 14.9
Cronbach Alpha coefficient was used to test the inter-
Black Sea region 28 3.9
nal consistency of the items in CAS and the reliabil-
Southeastern anatolian region 42 5.8
ity of the scale. In the literature, it was reported that
Level of Income
if the Cronbach Alpha coefficient was below 0.40, the
Income lower than expenditure 145 20.1
scale was not reliable, if the value was between 0.40 and
Equal income and expenditure 378 52.5
0.59, the scale had low reliability, if between 0.60 and
Income higher than expenditure 197 27.4
0.79, this meant the scale had reliability and if between
Having COVID diagnosis
0.80–100, this indicated high reliability (Knapp, 1998;
Yes 5 0.7
Tavşancıl, 2010). In this study, the reliability coefficient
No 715 99.3
of the answers given by the participants was determined
COVID history in family
to be 0.864 (Table 1). The Cronbach Alpha Reliability
Yes 21 2.9
Coefficient of the original scale was found to be 0.93
No 699 97.1
(Lee, 2020). In the developed COVID 19 Anxiety Syn-
Properties X ± SD
drome Scale, the Cronbach Alpha Reliability Coefficient
Age (Year) 31.64 ± 9.27
was found to be 0.86 (Nikčević & Spada, 2020). It was
Number of PEOPLE AT HOME 3.78 ± 1.62
found to be 0.87 in the Coronavirus Pandemic Anxiety
Scale (Bernardo et al., 2020). According to these results,
it was determined that the Cronbach Alpha Reliability
acceptable and statistically significant (χ2(10) = 767.751; Coefficient of the Turkish version of the CAI had high
p < 0.01) (Table 1). This result proved that the sample size reliability.
was sufficient for the factor analysis and the data were suit- The single factor that occurred explained 64.943% of the
able for analysis (Büyüköztürk et al., 2008). total variance (Table 1). In single factor designs, the value
The five- item tool which aimed to measure the anxi- for the variance explained to be 30% or more was considered
ety level of individuals who participated into the study was to be sufficient (Tavşancıl, 2010). It explains 62.4% of the
developed depending on a single theoretical dimension. variance explained in the two-factor design in the developed
Basic component analysis was chosen as the factorization COVID 19 Anxiety Syndrome Scale (Nikčević & Spada,
method in order to reveal the factor pattern of the corona- 2020). In the original scale, the single factor explained
virus anxiety scale. Although there was no definite limit 59.85% of the total variance. Within this framework, it was

13
5618 Current Psychology (2022) 41:5612–5620

noticed that the contribution of a defined factor upon the Limitations of the Research
total variance was sufficient. The high variance ratios indi-
cated that the factor structure of the scale was strong (Şencan, This research has several limitations. Due to social dis-
2005). tancing, the survey was spread online through social net-
The construct validity of the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale works to reach a large research audience in a short time
was evaluated with confirmatory factor analysis. Confirma- during the COVID-19 crisis. This type of online self
tory Factor analysis was a method evaluating whether the response method may target specific socio-demographic
results obtained from the data collected from the participants groups. Because analyses of COVID-19 anxiety and hope
complied with the theoretical structure or not (Çapık, 2014). levels are based on cross-sectional data, large-scale lon-
In this type of analysis, various fit indices such as Chi-square gitudinal or experimental studies in this population are
fit test (Chi-Square Goodness), GFI (Goodness of Fit Index), needed to make comparisons between different future
RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), CFI periods. These findings can be generalized to the research
(Comparative Fit Index), NFI (Normed Fit Index), RFI (Rela- group because the COVID-19 process and its effects vary
tive Fit) Index) and IFI (Incremental Fit Index) were used. according to many factors, such as age, gender, socioeco-
Among these indices, p > 0.05 was required for the Chi- nomic and education levels, and region or country.
square fit test that regarded fit of the population covariance
matrix and the sample covariance matrix. However, the p
value was generally significant because it was very sensitive Conclusions
to the sample size. In this case, the value (χ2/df) obtained
dividing the value of χ2 by the degrees of freedom was taken In conclusion, it was determined that "Coronavirus Anxi-
into account and this value should be 2 or less (Çapık, 2014; ety Scale" which was developed on the basis of five items
Waltz et al., 2010). In order to express that the model had a and single sub-dimension in order to determine the level
good fit, GFI, NFI and CFI values should be above 0.90 and of anxiety arisen from coronavirus pandemic was a valid
the RMSEA fit test should be between 0 and 1 (Moon & Kim, and reliable measurement tool. Furthermore, in the study
2017). When CAS goodness of fit indices were analyzed, it it was also found that as the anxiety levels of individu-
was possible to mention that the model was at an accept- als increased, their level of hope decreased. It has been
able level with the values of RMSEA 0.060; GFI 0.987, CFI thought that the scale will contribute to further research-
0.991, and NFI 0.985 (Table 2). ers to be carried out during the pandemic process and it
It was a desired criterion for the factor load to be at least is recommended to carry out more studies on the subject.
0.40 (Erefe, 2002; Polit & Beck, 2018). The combined reliabil-
ity value of the implicit variables in the measurement model
should be higher than 0.70, and the average explained vari- Data Availability  The data that support the finding of this study are
ance value should be higher than 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010). As available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
result, it was determined that the scale had divergence validity
(Table 3). Declarations 
As the anxiety levels of the individuals in the study
Disclosure Statement  No potential conflict of interest was reported
increase, their levels of hope decrease. Hope is a resilience by the authors.
factor that can improve well-being during a global health crisis
(Gallagher & Lopez, 2018). Individuals possessing more hope Ethical Principles of the Research  In the study, necessary permission was
are less likely to have negative emotions and are more likely to obtained by e-mail from Sherman A. Lee, who developed the scale, in
order to adapt the CAS into Turkish. In order to carry out the study, neces-
adopt positive attitudes and coping strategies when faced with sary permissions were obtained from the human researchers’ ethics com-
problems (Cheng et al., 2021). mittee (Date: 30/04/2020 Protocol No: 04/24) and the Ministry of Health.
When we look at studies concerning hope, the increase in A consent form including the information about the research was sent to
the anxiety levels of individuals whose living conditions have the participants electronically, their consent was obtained and recorded.
changed during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic
process leads to a decrease in their hope levels (Erdoğdu
et al., 2020; Hacimusalar et al., 2020; Bernardo & Mendoza,
2020; Gallagher et al., 2021). Consistent with the literature, References
this study shows that hope and COVID-19 anxiety are impor-
tant aspects of individuals’ coping styles. Akgül, A. (2003). Statistical analysis techniques, SPSS applications
in medical research (3rd ed.,pp.440–455). Emek Offset Ltd.
Şti, Ankara.

13
 Current Psychology (2022) 41:5612–5620 5619

Aksakoğlu, G. (2001). Sağlıkta araştırma teknikleri ve analiz Turkey. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 129, 181–188. https://​
yöntemleri (Research technics and analysis methods in health). doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jpsyc​hires.​2020.​07.​024
Dokuz Eylül Üniversity Press. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate
Almond, D., & Mazumder, B. (2005). The 1918 influenza pandemic data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
and subsequent health outcomes: An analysis of SIPP data. Herth, K. (1991). Development and refinement of an instrument to
American Economic Review, 95(2), 258–262. https://​doi.​org/​ measure hope. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, 5(1), 39.
10.​1257/​00028​28057​74669​943 Knapp, T. R. (1998).  Quantitative nursing research. Sage
Altunışık, R., Çoşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S. & Yıldırım, E. (2010). Publications.
Research Methods in Social Science. Sakarya Yayıncılık. Lee, S. (2020). Coronavirus anxiety scale: A brief mental health
Anderson, J. (1988). Content and text analysis. In: Keeves JP, Eds. screener for COVID-19 related anxiety. Death Studies, 44(7),
Educational Research Methodology and Measurement. An Inter- 393–401. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​07481​187.​2020.​17484​81
national Handbook. Pergamon Press. Lee, S., Mathis, A., Jobe, M., & Pappalardo, E. (2020). Clinically sig-
Aslan, O., Kamile, S., & Akyol, M. (2006) Hope and learned resource- nificant fear and anxiety of COVID-19: A psychometric examina-
fulness among parents of disabled children. Nucleus, 98, 93–3. tion of the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale. Psichiatry Research, 290,
http://​hdl.​handle.​net/​10755/​335179 1–7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​psych​res.​2020.​113112
Asmundson, G. J., & Taylor, S. (2020). How health anxiety influences Liu, S., Yang, L., Zhang, C., Xiang, Y., Liu, Z., Hu, S., & Zhang,
responses to viral outbreaks like COVID-19: What all decision- B. (2020). Online mental health services in China during the
makers, health authorities, and health care professionals need to COVID-19 outbreak. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(4), E17–E18.
know. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 71(2), 1–2. https://​doi.​org/​ https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S2215-​0366(20)​30077-8
10.​1016/j.​janxd​is.​2020.​102211 Meydan, C. H., & Sesen, H. (2011). Structural equation modeling
Balaratnasingam, S., & Janca, A. (2006). Mass hysteria revisited. Cur- AMOS applications. Ankara: Detay Publishing.
rent Opinion in Psychiatry, 19(2), 171–174. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Nguyen, H. C., Nguyen, M. H., Do, B. N., Tran, C. Q., Nguyen, T. T.
1097/​01.​yco.​00002​14343.​59872.​7a P., Pham, K. P., Pham, L. V., Tran, K. V., Duong, T. T., Tran, T.
Bernardo, A., & Mendoza, N. (2020). Measuring hope during V., Duong, T. H., Nguyen, T. T., Nguyen, Q. H., Hoang, T. M.,
the COVID-19 outbreak in the Philippines: development Nguyen, K. T., Pham, T. T., Yang, S. H., Chao, J., & Duong, T.
and validation of the state locus-of-Hope scale short form in V. (2020). People with suspected covıd-19 symptoms were more
Filipino. Current Psychology, 1-10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ likely depressed and had lower health-related quality of life: The
s12144-​020-​00887-x potential benefit of health literacy. Journal Clinical Medical,
Bernardo, A. B., Mendoza, N. B., Simon, P. D., Cunanan, A. L. P., 9(965), 1–18. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​jcm90​40965
Dizon, J. I. W. T., Tarroja, M. C. H., ... & Saplala, J. E. G. (2020). Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2018). Essentials of nursing research:
Coronavirus pandemic anxiety scale (CPAS-11): development Appraising evidence for nursing practice (9th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
and initial validation. Current Psychology, 1-9. https://​doi.​org/​ Rubin, G. J., Potts, H. W. W., & Michie, S. (2010). The impact of
10.​1007/​s12144-​020-​01193-2 communications on swine flu (influenza A H1N1v) on pub-
Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing lic responses to the outbreak: Results of 36 national telephone
model fit. Testing Structural Equation Models, 154, 136–162. surveys in the UK. Health Technology Assess, 14(34), 183–266.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö., & Köklü, N. (2008). Statistics for social https://​doi.​org/​10.​3310/​hta14​340-​03
sciences. (3rd ed.) Pegem Publications. Schofield, P. E., Stockler, M. R., Zannino, D., Tebbutt, N. C., Price, T.
Büyükoztürk, S. (2018). In Data analysis handbook for social science. J., Simes, R. J., Wong, N., Pavlakis, N., Ransom, D., Moylan, E.,
Original work published in Turkish (Manual of data analysis for Underhill, C., Wyld, D., Burns, I., Ward, R., Wilcken, N., & Jefford,
social sciences) (24 th. Ed.). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık M. (2016). Hope, optimism and survival in a randomised trial of
Capik, C. (2014). Use of confirmatory factor analysis in validity and chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Supportive Care in
reliability studies. Journal of Anatolia Nursing and Health Sci- Cancer, 24(1), 401–408. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00520-​015-​2792-8
ences, 17(3), 196–205. Şahin, M. (2020). Impact of weather on COVID-19 pandemic in Tur-
Cheng, L., Guo, X., Liu, H., Chen, Q., & Cui, R. (2021). Hope, death key. The Science of the Total Environment, 728, 138810. https://​
anxiety and simplified coping style scores of nursing students dur- doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2020.​138810
ing the outbreak of COVID-19: A cross-sectional study. Medicine, Şencan, H. (2005). Reliability and validity in social and behavioral
100(34), e27016. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 097/M
​ D.0​ 00000​ 00000​ 27016 measures. Seçkin Publishing.
Erdoğdu, Y., Koçoğlu, F., & Sevim, C. (2020). An investigation of Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Measurement of attitudes and data analysis with
the psychosocial and demographic determinants of anxiety and SPSS. Nobel Publication Distribution.
hopelessness during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal Clinical Psy- Taylor, S. (2019). The psychology of pandemics: Preparing for the next
chiatry, 23. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5505/​kpd.​2020.​35403 global outbreak of infectious disease. Cambrigde Scholars Publishing.
Erefe, İ. (2002). Research and development methods in nursing, research Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O. L., & Lenz, E. R. (Eds.). (2010). Meas-
principles, processes and methods in nursing. Odak Offset. urement in nursing and health research. Springer publishing
Fullana, M., Mazzei, D., Vieta, E., & Radua, J. (2020). Coping behaviors company.
associated with decreased anxiety and depressive symptoms during Wang, S., Xu, X., Zhou, M., Chen, T., Yang, X., Chen, G., & Gong,
the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. Journal Affect Disorder, Q. (2017). Hope and the brain: Trait hope mediates the protective
1(275), 80–81. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jad.​2020.​06.​027 role of medial orbitofrontal cortex spontaneous activity against
Gallagher, M., Smith, L., Richardson, A., D’Souza, J., & Long, L. anxiety. NeuroImage, 157, 439–447. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
(2021). Examining the longitudinal effects and potential mecha- neuro​image.​2017.​05.​056
nisms of hope on COVID-19 stress, anxiety, and well-being. Wheaton, M. G., Deacon, B. J., McGrath, P. B., Berman, N. C., &
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 50(3), 234–245. https://​doi.​org/​ Abramowitz, J. S. (2012). Dimensions of anxiety sensitivity in
10.​1080/​16506​073.​2021.​18773​41 the anxiety disorders: Evaluation of the ASI-3. Journal of Anxi-
Hacimusalar, Y., Kahve, A., Yaşar, A., & Aydın, M. (2020). Anxiety ety Disorders, 26(3), 401–408. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​janxd​is.​
and hopelessness levels in COVID-19 pandemic: A comparative 2012.​01.​002
study of healthcare professionals and other community sample in World Health Organization. (2021). Coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19): situation report, 82. Access address: https://​www.​

13
5620 Current Psychology (2022) 41:5612–5620

who.​int/​emerg​encies/​disea​ses/​novel-​coron​avirus-​2019 Access Yip, W. C. M., Hsiao, W., Meng, Q., Chen, W., & Sun, X. (2010).
Date: 04 October 2021. Realignment of incentives for health-care providers in China. The
Uysa, M. T., & Eren, G. T. (2020). Discrimination Against the Elderly Lancet, 375(9720), 1120–1130. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0140-​
on Social Media during the COVID-19 Epidemic: Twitter Case. 6736(10)​60063-3
Turkish Studies, 15(4), 1147–1162. https://​doi.​org/​10.​7827/​Turki​
shStu​dies.​44396 Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Van Bortel, T., Basnayake, A., Wurie, F., Jambai, M., Koroma, A. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
S., Muana, A. T., … Nellums, N. B. (2016). Psychosocial efects
of an Ebola outbreak at individual, community and international
levels. Bull World Health Organ. 94(3), 210-214. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​2471/​BLT.​15.​158543

13