Scholarlink

Background <p>Many immunocompromised individuals continue to practice physical distancing behaviors to avoid severe COVID-19 outcomes. To measure the intensity of these physical distancing behaviors, we aimed to develop and validate a standardized metric across age groups: the Physical Distancing Scale for COVID-19 Avoidance (PDS-C19©).</p> Methodology <p>PDS-C19 development involved content scoping, initial draft PDS-C19 design phase, and exploratory testing (via asynchronous online forums). Psychometric properties (structural validity, reliability, and construct validity) of the PDS-C19 were evaluated using a random sample of immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised participants (<i>n</i> = 1059) of the EAGLE Study, including adults and children aged 0.5–17 years from the US and UK. Adult caregivers of children aged ≤ 12 years completed a proxy version of the PDS-C19 on their behalf, in addition to providing self-reported responses.</p> Results <p>Findings from the two asynchronous forums (<i>n</i> = 23 and <i>n</i> = 22) indicated that the items identified in the scoping phase were relevant and well-understood. As part of the structural validity analysis, item-response distributions, inter-item correlations, and exploratory factor analyses supported a nine-item unidimensional intensity scale. Confirmatory factor analyses reduced the PDS-C19 to seven items (two items were dropped due to high residual correlations or differential item functioning by age). Internal consistency was high (ω = 0.97); convergent validity was good, with high correlations (<i>r</i><sub>max</sub>=0.74) with clinical outcome assessments of the ability to participate in activities and with worry. The PDS-C19 had good known-groups validity, with scores distinguishable by types of activities, level of worry, and number of close contacts.</p> Conclusion <p>The PDS-C19 had acceptable structural and construct validity and high internal consistency, demonstrating its value as a measure of physical distancing to avoid COVID-19 in immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised individuals.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Development of the Physical Distancing Scale for COVID-19 Avoidance (PDS-C19©) in immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised individuals and its validation in the EAGLE Study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月31日

查看全文
  • James C. Marcus,
  • Tiago Maia,
  • Paul Williams,
  • Renata T. C. Yokota,
  • Sofie Arnetorp,
  • Timothy A. Herring,
  • Sudhir Venkatesan,
  • Philip A. Powell,
  • Johan L. Hans Severens,
  • James W. Varni,
  • Sylvia Taylor,
  • Marieke Krol,
  • John E. Ware Jr.

摘要

Background

Many immunocompromised individuals continue to practice physical distancing behaviors to avoid severe COVID-19 outcomes. To measure the intensity of these physical distancing behaviors, we aimed to develop and validate a standardized metric across age groups: the Physical Distancing Scale for COVID-19 Avoidance (PDS-C19©).

Methodology

PDS-C19 development involved content scoping, initial draft PDS-C19 design phase, and exploratory testing (via asynchronous online forums). Psychometric properties (structural validity, reliability, and construct validity) of the PDS-C19 were evaluated using a random sample of immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised participants (n = 1059) of the EAGLE Study, including adults and children aged 0.5–17 years from the US and UK. Adult caregivers of children aged ≤ 12 years completed a proxy version of the PDS-C19 on their behalf, in addition to providing self-reported responses.

Results

Findings from the two asynchronous forums (n = 23 and n = 22) indicated that the items identified in the scoping phase were relevant and well-understood. As part of the structural validity analysis, item-response distributions, inter-item correlations, and exploratory factor analyses supported a nine-item unidimensional intensity scale. Confirmatory factor analyses reduced the PDS-C19 to seven items (two items were dropped due to high residual correlations or differential item functioning by age). Internal consistency was high (ω = 0.97); convergent validity was good, with high correlations (rmax=0.74) with clinical outcome assessments of the ability to participate in activities and with worry. The PDS-C19 had good known-groups validity, with scores distinguishable by types of activities, level of worry, and number of close contacts.

Conclusion

The PDS-C19 had acceptable structural and construct validity and high internal consistency, demonstrating its value as a measure of physical distancing to avoid COVID-19 in immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised individuals.