The Coronavirus Impact Scale: Construction, Validation, and Comparisons in Diverse Clinical Samples.
Joel Stoddard, Elizabeth Reynolds, Ruth Paris, Simone P Haller, Sara B Johnson, Jodi Zik, Eliza Elliotte, Mihoko Maru, Allison L Jaffe, Ajitha Mallidi, Ashley R Smith, Raquel G Hernandez, Heather E Volk, Melissa A Brotman, Joan Kaufman
Author Information
Joel Stoddard: University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.
Elizabeth Reynolds: Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Ruth Paris: Boston University School of Social Work, Boston, Massachusetts.
Simone P Haller: National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Sara B Johnson: Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Jodi Zik: University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.
Eliza Elliotte: University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, and Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.
Mihoko Maru: Boston University School of Social Work, Boston, Massachusetts.
Allison L Jaffe: National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Ajitha Mallidi: National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Ashley R Smith: National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Raquel G Hernandez: Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Heather E Volk: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Melissa A Brotman: National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Joan Kaufman: Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Objective: This report is of the construction and initial psychometric properties of the coronavirus Impact Scale in multiple large and diverse samples of families with children and adolescents. The scale was established to capture the impact of the coronavirus pandemic during its first wave. Differences in impact between samples and internal structure within samples were assessed. Method: A total of 572 caregivers of children and adolescents or expecting mothers in diverse clinical and research settings completed the coronavirus Impact Scale. Samples differed in regard to developmental stage, background, inpatient/outpatient status, and primary research or clinical setting. Model free methods were used to measure the scale's internal structure and to determine a scoring method. Differences between samples in specific item responses were measured by multivariate ordinal regression. Results: The coronavirus Impact Scale demonstrated good internal consistency in a variety of clinical and research populations. Across the groups studied, single, immigrant, predominantly Latinx mothers of young children reported the greatest impact of the pandemic, with noteworthy effects on food access and finances reported. Individuals receiving outpatient or inpatient care reported greater impacts on health care access. Elevated scores on the coronavirus Impact Scale were positively associated with measures of caregiver anxiety and both caregiver- and child-reported stress at a moderate effect size. Conclusion: The coronavirus Impact Scale is a publicly available scale with adequate psychometric properties for use in measuring the impact of the coronavirus pandemic in diverse populations.
