Validation of the Hungarian version of the seven item FCV-19 questionnaire was done in 2021 May in the sample of general population (N = 2000). Psychometric properties were analysed by descriptive statistics, methods of classical test theory were used to measure validity and reliability. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to compare one and two-factor structure of the construct.
Differences in FCV-19 mean scores were highlighted between different age groups (18–34: 13.5; 35–54: 13.7; 55≤: 14.3), male (13.1) and female (14.4), vaccinated (14.2) and non-vaccinated (13.1) population groups. Correlation between anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9) and FCV-19 was moderate (p < 0.01; r = 0.424 with GAD-7 and r = 0.364 with PHQ-9). Item descriptive measures suggest that people agreed the most with questions 1 (afraid of COVID-19), 2 (unpleasant thinking), 5 (seeing news in social media). Vaccinated group indicated higher fear in items 1–5 and equalled in items 6–7 compared to non-vaccinated group. Items 3 (clammy hands), 4 (losing life), 6 (cannot sleep),7 (palpitating heart) received the biggest proportion of disagreement responses.
The Hungarian version of the FCV-19 has good level of internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.88), and high corrected item-total correlation (r = 0.666–0.749). Dimensionality was assessed by one and two-factor confirmatory factor analysis, suggesting that observing two latent factors is possible, also resulted a better model fit. Although parallel analysis is required, whereas the eigenvalue of the second latent factor was arguably low (eig = 1.01). The randomly generated correlation matrices of parallel analysis suggest minimum mean eigenvalue of no less than 1.05 for the second factor, demanding the one-factor model approach. Moreover, cross-country invariance comparative analysis further supported the unidimensional structure of the construct (29).
All two-factor analysis studies showed excellent model fits, the item-factor structures turned out different (5–7, 30). Almost every two-factor structure identified item 1,2,4,5 belonging to one component named as “emotional response” and items 3,6,7 representing the second factor called as “physiological/psychological response” (5, 7, 8, 19, 30, 31). In the structure of Iversen et al. (6) items 1,2,4 represented “cognitive fear” factor and 3,5,6,7 the “somatic fear” factor. Our two-factor structure is unique with identical similarities: physiological fear factor consists of items 3,4,6,7 and emotional fear of items 1,2,5. The weakest element in our two-factor structure, shown by the pattern matrix was item 4 (better correlating with the physiological factor: 0.50 vs 0.37). Nevertheless, item 4 potentially belongs to emotional fear dimension, CFA model fit results were better, when classifying it to psychological fear dimension. The results of one-factor models likewise in other studies also echoes strong relationship in item 1–2 and item 6–7, simultaneously a gap between these pairs (9, 12, 13).
Contemporary study introduced the validation of the Hungarian version of the FCV-19 questionnaire, showing congruent results to our study, though research groups worked separately. (3) Although, minor differences in translation regarding synonyms appeared, literally the sentences were corresponding. The two study samples (convenient vs general population) and data collection time (2021 January: mid of second wave vs 2021 May: ending of the third wave) remarkably differed. Conclusions of the two studies on construct validity and reliability conclusions were similar. Dimensionality assessed only by one-factor CFA, showed dissimilar, rather poor model fit, but the items relationship was kindred.
Huge number of psychometric property and factor analysis measures followed the original Ahorsu et al. FCV-19S validation study (2). Recent study provides a dimensionality, reliability and validity assessment using one & two-model parallel exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Our results are consistent with the previous findings (11, 32–34), emphasising that FCV-19 has reliable and valid measurement properties.
This study aimed to evaluate the (1) dimensionality, (2) validity and reliability of the Fear of Covid-19 questionnaire, although a primary limitation is posed by the timing of the data collection. Salient divergences in Covid fear could have been between the contagion peaks of the pandemic and access to vaccines both within the country and between countries. Second limitation of this study is the online data collection and convenient sampling among respondent of panel database. Considering the second factors eigenvalue (= 1.01), EFA and parallel analysis suggests that researchers have to be thorough when concluding the results of the two-factor model. Item 4 (losing life), unlike in other structures was stronger related to physiological factor than to emotional.