The Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Threat Scale

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2441431/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Threat Scale

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2441431/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 16 May, 2023

Read the published version in Natural Hazards →

You are reading this latest preprint version

The aim of this research was to investigate the validity and reliability of a Turkish version of the 26-item Australian Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Threat Scale (PPDTS). A cross-sectional study involving 530 university students and staff at Giresun University was conducted to establish the psychometric properties of the PPDTS. Content analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach alpha values for reliability were used to analyze the data. Content analysis showed that one item needed to be dropped as it was not related to environmental threats to Turkish communities. The exploratory factor analysis indicated that 66% of the total variance was explained by three factors: (i) knowledge and management of the external situational environment, (ii) management of one’s emotional and psychological response, and (iii) management of one’s social environment. The confirmatory factor analysis showed acceptable overall goodness of fit for the three-factor model: CFI (0.908), RMSEA (0.074) for the 21 item scale. Cronbach's α coefficients of the subscales were 0.91, 0.93, and 0.83 respectively, while for the whole scale it was 0.95. Four items from the original PPDTS were deleted in the course of the analyses. It was concluded that the Turkish version (PPDTS-T21) is a valid and reliable assessment tool for the evaluation of levels of psychological readiness for disaster threats to Turkish communities and will be useful in policy making for community preparedness for disaster events.

Natural disasters

Disaster preparation

Psychological preparedness

Mental preparedness

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction defines disaster as “A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society at any scale due to hazardous events interacting with conditions of exposure, vulnerability and capacity, leading to one or more of the following: human, material, economic and environmental losses and impacts.” Rapid onset natural disasters take two forms (McLennan, Bearman & Ryan, 2022): geophysical (earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis) and weather-related (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and wildfires). These often strike communites with little warning resulting in significant adverse human impacts, including death, injury and traumatic stresses. It has been observed that the number of weather-related disasters and the losses they cause have increased all globally due to the effects of climate change (McGee & Penning-Rowsell, 2023; IPCC, 2022). In addition, there are other natural disasters that develop more slowly such as droughts, famines and illness epidemics. The recent COVID-19 pandemic, which can also be considered as a climate change related disaster, has had global repercussions and affected most countries in unprecedented ways.

Due to its geological, topographic structure and climatic characteristics, Turkey is located in a geographical location where several types of disasters, especially earthquakes, are experienced frequently. Turkey is among the countries that can be described as "high risk" in terms of earthquakes (AFAD 2018). Approximately 60% of the loss of life due to disasters in Turkey has resulted from earthquakes, and an earthquake that causes extensive loss of life and property occurs on average every five years (AFAD 2020a). The major earthquakes that caused damage and loss of life in Turkey since 1999 are as follows: 1999 Gölcük- Düzce earthquake 17,480 deaths (AFAD 2018); 2003 Bingöl earthquake 176 deaths (Aydan et.al, 2002); 2011 Van earthquake 644 deaths (AFAD 2011); Elazig earthquake 38 deaths; and the 2020 Izmir earthquake 113 deaths (AFAD 2020b). In addition to earthquakes, other types of disasters such as landslides, floods, rockfalls and avalanches are also frequently experienced in Turkey. In 2021, 13,135 people were affected by the flood disaster in the Western Black Sea region (AFAD 2021). In 2021, severe storms struck Istanbul and Kocaeli in the Marmara region, resulting in injuries and substantial economic and financial losses. In 2021, 16 people lost their lives when numerous forest fires occurred in 54 provinces in the Mediterranean, Aegean, Marmara, Western Black Sea and Southeastern Anatolia Regions; hundreds of thousands of hectares of forests were burned and several settlements were destroyed (Varol, 2021).

In the face of disasters of such magnitude, psychological preparation has become recognised as a vital component of community disaster preparedness alongside traditional approaches to physical or material preparation of households to survive disaster events (Agarwal et. al, 2020, Zakour, 2023). Disaster preparedness at the community level can be defined as personal protective behavior shaped to protect individuals from unexpected, unpredictable situations that may have an adverse impact on their life and possessions. All disaster management frameworks and models emphasize the importance of being ready for unexpected circumstances (Suhaimi & Marzuki 2016). Historically, response agencies have concentrated attention on the physical or material preparations that need to be made in order to protect oneself and one's family from death or injury, and to avoid or minimize financial and economic loss (Malkina-Pykh & Pykh 2015; McLennan, Marques & Every 2020). Thus, most of the studies reported on disaster preparedness have focused on such physical or material preparations. More recently, disaster researchers have turned their attention to the importance of psychological, or mental, preparation in addition to physical and material preparation. Researchers including Clode (2010); Every, McLennan, Reynolds and Trigg (2019); Malkina-Pykh and Pykh (2013); Roudini, Khankeh and Witruk (2017); Suhaimi and Marzuki (2016); and Zakour (2023) have argued that psychological preparation for disaster threat is as important as physical/material preparation. Researchers have suggested that psychological preparation consists of at least two broad mental dimensions. The first of these is the cognitive aspect, which mostly includes accurate knowledge about the threat situation, possible adaptive reactions and the threat environment; the second is the emotional aspect, which includes self-awareness and emotional self-control. Research by Boylan and Lawrence (2020) supported this two-dimensional formulation in their Australian study about preparedness for wildfire threats and noted that most people experience anticipatory negative emotions such as stress, fear or anxiety to some extent about possible future disaster threats and these feelings can motivate them to act, take constructive preparations and thus lessen the danger. However, Boylan and Lawrence also emphasised that if these feelings become excessive, they will impair a person's cognitive functioning (such as risk perception, decision-making, attention, memory, and attentional focus), which in turn may have an adverse impact on adaptive behavior during an actual threat event. The importance of this is that although physical/material preparations and plans against the threat of disaster are essential, cognitive awareness and coping with extreme emotional reactions in a threat situation become very important to implement survival plans effectively.

Being psychologically prepared for a disaster threat can thus help people cope with the stress of an emergency warning period and hazard impact, feel safer, be more controlled, and make better survival decisions. In addition, preparing individuals psychologically for the impact of disasters can help reduce adverse mental effects of disasters by protecting householders from harmful psychological distress and long-term mental health problems that may arise from the trauma of being involved in disasters (Roudini et al., 2017, Zakour, 2023). Thus, psychological preparation before a crisis may help people predict, recognize, and control their emotions, leading to improved coping. The components of psychological preparation that must be included in a particular at-risk community setting should take into account the specific natural hazard threats likely to impact that community, as well as the practical and material local demands and difficulties, and the resources available. These elements must all be culturally acceptable. Therefore, research is needed to determine the psychological readiness of individuals in particular communities to face the kinds of disasters most likely to impact these communities. The question arises: what instruments are available to policy makers and emergency response agencies to assess levels of psychological preparedness for disasters in particular communities? The measure developed by Boylan and Lawrence (2020) was developed specifically for Australian communites facing wildfires and thus has limited applicability to the natural hazard threat situation in Turkey, where the major threats historically have come from earthquakes, landslides and floods. A more general 26-item measure of psychological preparedness for disasters in northen Australian communities was developed by Zulch, the Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Threat Scale (PPDTS-26, Zulch, 2019) and a preliminary inspection suggested that this measure was likely to prove suitable as the basis for a Turkish measure of psychological preparedness for disasters likely to impact Turkish communites. It was noted that a Russian-language version of an early (18-item, Zulch et al., 2012) version of the PPDTS had been developed by Malkina-Pykh and Pykh (2013), however no details of the item-content were reported.

The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Threat Scale (PPDTS-26) and adapt it as needed in order to develop a measure of psychological preparedness for disasters appropriate for use in Turkey in order to investigate and promote psychological preparedness for future disaster events. The Results section of this paper reports English language versions of the PPDTS-26 items. The final Turkish version of the measure is provided as an Appendix.

2.1 Sample

This cross-sectional study was conducted among university students and staff at Giresun Univerity, north-eastern Turkey, in May and June 2021. Participants’ details are summarised in Table 1 of the Results section. The total number of study participants was 530, 323 women and 207 men. For studies involving scale development or adaptation, the data set for a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) should be different from the data set for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) as recommended by Schumacker and Lomax (2010). Accordingly, our data were randomly divided into two groups, one (n = 265) for the EFA and other (n = 265) for the CFA. For factor analysis, a sample size of 10 or more persons per scale item is considered desirable (Comrey, 1988; Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988; MacCallum et al., 1999). The sample size was thus deemed sufficient in our study.

2.2.Measuring Instrument

The participants were asked to complete an online Google Forms survey that asked about their demographic information and responses to a 25-item Turkish language version of the PPDTS—as noted below an item from the PPDTS-26 was deleted because it was deemed not to relevant to residents of Turkish communities. An 18-item version (PPDTS-18) had been first created by Zulch, Morrissey, Reser and Creed (2012) for use in Northern Australian communities. That measure was extended subsequently by Zulch (2019) to incorporate 26 items (PPDTS-26) in four subscales: Knowledge and Management of the External Situational Environment (13 items); Management of one’s Emotional and Psychological Response (7 item); Management of one’s Social Environment (3 item); and Anticipatory Coping with Emotional Response (3 items). Responses were made 4-point Likert-type scales with response options 1 = Not at all true of me; 2 = Hardly true of me; 3 = Moderately true of me; and 4 = Exactly true of me. Zulch reported CFA model fit indices of: χ²/df(395) = 2.30, TLI = 0.95, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05. The Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency values for the four subscales were 0.94, 0.90, 0.75, and 0.64 respectively; and 0.93 for the full scale.

2.3. Procedure

The study was approved by the ethics committee of Giresun University (No. 20/35.7) and permission was obtained from Hannah Zulch for adaptation of her PPDTS-26 scale. The scale was translated into Turkish with minor modifications to the content of some items to take into account that Turkish communities are notably at risk of earthquakes, landslides, flood, epidemic, and to a lesser extent wildfires, rather than the tropical storms and cyclones to which northern Australian communities are especially vulnerable.Then it was translated back into English by language professionals. Two experts in disasters, who were proficient in both English and Turkish, were invited to check the accuracy of the forward and back translations of the items. Following this, five consultants were asked to evaluate the 26 items of the scale for appropriateness of content (Lawshe, 1975). One item (I know what the difference is between a cyclone warning and a cyclone watch situation) was removed because the item content was irrelevant for Turkish communities. Google Forms was used as the online questionnaire platform. A pilot study was carried out with the final 25 item Turkish version of the PPDTS and the scale to verify that all of the items were readily understood by the participants.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

All analyses were carried out using the IBM SPSS 26.0 and IBM SPSS Amos 22 software. After the descriptive analysis was done, exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses were conducted to test the construct validity of the scale. Maximum Likelihood analysis as a factor extraction method with Varimax rotation method were used in the EFA. Items with factor loadings ≥ 0.40 were accepted (Tsai et al. 2015). In the CFA, p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Internal consistency of the scale and subscales was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha, with 0.70 set as the criterion for internal consistency reliability (Hair et al., 2010).

3.1. Characteristics of the Participants

Demographic characteristics of participants from the 530 valid questionnaires are shown in Table 1, most of the participants were female (61%) and most (78%) were aged between 18–25.

Table 1

Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Participants
	Total Sample
Characteristics	N(M)	%(SD)
Gender Female Male	323 207	60.9% 39.1%
Age 18–25 26–35 36–45 46 and older	412 68 46 4	77.7% 12.8% 8.7% 0.8%
Marital Status Single Married	469 61	88.5% 11.5%
Education levels Bachelor and below (students) Master’s and above (mostly staff)	482 48	90.9% 9.1%

3.2. Construct Validity Analysis

With regard to EFA, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test was first used to assess if the sampling was adequate and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was used check that the items could be used to determine structure. The KMO of the study was 0.937 which is greater than 0.5 (Field, 2009) andBartlett's test of sphericity was significant (χ² =4886.669; p ≤ .001), showing that factor analysis would be suitable to implement.

As a result of the EFA analysis, a three factor structure was obtained. Item 1 was deleted because of low factor loading (< 0.40) and item 6 was deleted because of cross-loading. The remaining items and their loadings, together with factor eigen values and variance percentages are shown in Table 2. The first factor comprised 10 items, the second factor 10 items, and third factor 3 items. In all, the three factors explained the 66% of the cumulative variance. A scree plot analysis confirmed the the three-factor model solution (Fig. 1).

Table 2. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results of the PPDTS.

Items	Rotated Component Matrix
	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
Item 16. When necessary, I can talk myself through challenging situations.	.811	.156	.181
Item 15. I think I am able to manage my feelings pretty well in difficult and challenging situations.	.778	.249	.291
Item 18. I know which strategies I could use to calm myself in a severe natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, forest fire or epidemic/pandemic.	.774	.308	.191
Item 14. In a severe natural disaster situation I would be able to cope with my anxiety and fear.	.776	.368	.061
Item 17. I seem to be able to stay cool and calm in most difficult situations.	.702	.197	.274
Item 19. If I found myself in a severe natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, forest fire or epidemic/pandemic situation, I would know how to manage my own response to the situation.	.672	.395	.271
Item 25. I usually prepare mentally for situations that might be difficult or stressful.	.658	.254	.380
Item 23. I am able to identify my feelings pretty well in challenging situations.	.625	.338	.409
Item 24. During severe natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, forest fire or epidemic/pandemic, I would notice if I am feeling anxious or stressed. ¹	.581	.313	.532
Item 13. I feel reasonably confident in my own ability to deal with stressful situations that I might find myself in.	.580	.450	.217
Item 8. I know which household preparedness measures are needed to stay safe in a very severe natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, forest fire or epidemic/pandemic.	.161	.765	.207
Item 10. I know what to look out for in my home and workplace in case of an emergency related to natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, forest fire or epidemic/pandemic.	.225	.755	.256
Item 12. I am knowledgeable about the impact that very severe natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, forest fire can have on my home.	.193	.709	.075
Item 7. I am familiar with the severe natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, forest fire or epidemic/pandemic preparedness materials available to me.	.277	.699	.211
Item 11. I am familiar with the disaster warning system messages used for extreme natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, forest fire or epidemic/pandemic.	.276	.679	.151
Item 5. I know how to adequately prepare my home for the forthcoming natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, forest fire or epidemic/pandemic.	.332	.596	.301
Item 9. I am familiar with the signs of an approaching natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, forest fire or epidemic/pandemic.	.278	.583	.188
Item 3. I am confident that I know what to do and what actions to take in case of a severe natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, forest fire or epidemic/pandemic.	.295	.542	.262
Item 4. I would be able to locate the preparation materials in a natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, forest fire or epidemic/pandemic situation easily.	.370	.540	.282
Item 2. I regularly follow news bulletins and/or meteorological forecasts during a natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, forest fire or epidemic/pandemic.¹	.136	.435	.314
Item 21. If others are in distress, I would know how to calm them down.	.354	.364	.693
Item 20. I would be able to tell easily if those/others around me are in distress.	.366	.296	.682
Item 22. I know which strategies I could use to calm others in a severe natural disaster such as earthquake, flood, forest fire or epidemic/pandemic warning situation.	.324	.412	.518
Eigenvalues	12.11	2.04	1.08
Explained Variance (%)	52.67	8.89	4.69
Cumulative Variance (%)	52.67	61.56	66.25

Note: items deleted after the EFA because of low loading: item 1 and its loading: 0.297; because of cross-loading: item 6 and its loadings were 0.454 – 0.476.

¹ Items 2 and 24 were deleted from the scale subsequently following the CFA.

A CFA was then conducted to test the adapted three-factor model using the remaining 23 items (Fig. 2). In the CFA, items 2 and 24 were deleted because their low factor loadings. The subsequent model fit indices were as follows: χ² (179) = 440.402 (p < .001), RMSEA = 0.074 (p < .05), CFI = 0.908, GFI = 0.871, AGFI = 0.833, NFI = 0.855, TLI = 0.892 (Table 3). The fit indices, taken overall, suggest an acceptable fit for the three factor model (Hu & Bentler, 1998; Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). Note that we initially conducted a preliminary EFA and CFA using the same procedure reported by Zulch (2019), with Principal Component Analysis (PCA) as the extraction method and direct Oblimin for rotation. The CFA goodness-of-fit statistics indicated that the resulting 3-factor model was barely acceptable overall. We then conducted our major EFA and CFA analyses using Maximum Likelihood as the method of extraction and Varimax rotation, reported in Table 2. These goodness-of-fit statistics were all superior to those from the preliminary analyses and we have reported only the values from the second, major, analyses in Table 3. As an additional check of the appropriateness of the three factor model, a further CFA was carried to test the fit of a two factor solution model to the data. The goodness of fit indicators are shown in Table 3. The fit was notably poorer than that of the three factor model. Note that because only three factors had eigen values ≥ 1.0 we did not test a four-factor model (Fig. 1).

Table 3. Goodness-of-fit Measures of the Two and Three Factor Models

Goodness-of-fit measure	Good Fit Value*	Acceptable Value*	3 Factor Model Values (21 Items)	2 Factor Model Values (19 Items)
χ 2 /degree of freedom	≤ 3.00	≤ 5.00	2.460	2.792
Goodness-of-fit index (GFI)	≥ 0.90	≥ 0.80	0.871	0.871
Adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI)	≥ 0.95	≥ 0.85	0.833	0.831
Normed-fit index (NFI)	≥ 0.95	≥ 0.80	0.855	0.853
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)	≥ 0.95	≥ 0.80	0.892	0.882
Comparative fit index (CFI)	≥ 0.95	≥ 0.85	0.908	0.900
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)	≤ 0.50	≤ 0.80	0.074	0.082
*Sources: Browne and Cudeck (1993); Byrne (2001); Hu and Bentler (1999); Kline (1998); Kriston et al. (2008); Schermelleh-Engel et al. (2003).

To summarise the results of the construct validity analyses: the 21 items retained from the EFA were found to constitute three subscales. Knowledge and Management of the External Situational Environment includes items 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Management of one’s Emotional and Psychological Response includes items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25 and Management of one’s Social Environment includes items 20, 21, 22. It should be noted that four items in the PPDTS-26 were not retained in the Turkish version: 1, 2, 6, 24. No evidence was found to support Zulch’s (2019) PPDTS-26 fourth proposed subscale of Anticipatory Coping with Emotional Response.

3.3. Reliability Analysis

Cronbach’s alpha for the whole Turkish version of the PPDTS was 0.95, those for the three subscales were: Knowledge and Management of the External Situational Environment 0.91; Management of one’s Emotional and Psychological Response 0.93; and Management of one’s Social Environment 0.83., indicating high levels of internal consistency reliability.

The aim of this study was to construct and test the construct validity and internal consistency reliability of a Turkish version of the PPDTS-26. The results indicate that the 21-item PPDTS-T21 is a valid and reliable survey scale that can be used to measure the current levels of Turkish community members' psychological preparedness for a disaster event. The composition of the PPDTS-T21 differs in several respects from those of the two previous versions, PPDTS-18 (Zulch et al., 2012) and PPDTS-26 (Zulch, 2019). As decsribe earlier, the original 18-item version developed by Zulch et al. (2012) comprised 18 items making up two subscales: Knowledge and Management of the External Situational Environment and Anticipation, Awareness and Management of One’s Psychological Response. The later 26 item version (Zulch, 2019) comprised four subscales: Knowledge and Management of the External Situational Environment, Management of one’s Emotional and Psychological Response; Management of one’s Social Environment, and Anticipatory Coping with Emotional Response. A study by McLennan et al. (2020) using the original PPDTS-18 (Zulch et al., 2012) reported evidence supportive of two subscales, consistent with the findings from that original study: a 10-item Knowledge and Management of the Threat Situation sub-scale, and an 8-item Anticipation, Awareness and Self-Management sub-scale. The PPTDS-T21 comprises three subscales: Knowledge and Management of the External Situational Environment (9 items), Management of one’s Emotional and Psychological Response (9 items), and Management of One’s Social Environment (3 items). We did not find evidence supporting an Anticipatory Coping with Emotional Response subscale. It appears that further research about conceptualising and measuring the psychological preparedness for disaster construct is warranted. As we noted in the Introduction, it is likely that the psychological preparedness required of individuals to respond adaptively to a hazard event is related to their socio-economic and cultural environments and their history of specific natural hazards threats.

Limitations of the present study are acknowledged. In particular, the participants were all associated with a university and their ages were on average lower than that of the wider Turkish population. Additional studies using the PPDTS-T21 to survey residents of particular at-risk communities are needed to address these.

The Turkish version of the PPDTS (PPDTS-T21) appears to be a valid and reliable tool to measure levels of psychological preparedness for disaster threats in Turkish communities. Due to the rapidly increasing number of natural disasters associated with climate change, it is very likely that residents of many Turkish communities may be affected by future disasters and enhancing both psychological and physical/material preparedness will be essential to mitigate such risks. The PPDTS-T21 measure can be used to assess levels of psychological preparedness among residents of Turkish communities in similar ways that levels of physical/material preparedness can be assessed using questionnaire measures such as the brief and general Public Readiness Index (Council for Excellence in Government, 2006), or the more comprehensive and specific Earthquake Readiness Scale (Spittal, Walkey, McClure, Siegert & Ballantyne, 2006). Similarly, the PPDTS-T21 can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of community safety psychological preparedness enhancement initiatives aimed at mitigating the impacts of future disasters on community mental health.

Ethics Declaration: The study was approved by the ethics committee of Giresun University (No. 20/35.7). Participants were informed fully about the research and demonstrated their consent to participate by submitting their completed anonymous online survey questionnaires.

Funding: The authors declare that no funds, grants or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Competing Interests: The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethics Approval: Ethical approval was taken from the University of Giresun, Türkiye and was added as a supplementary file.

Consent: It was implied by participants choosing to complete and submit their anonymous online questionnaire.

Data: Study data was added as a supplementary file.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed to the study conception, design and writing. Data collection was done by CTG and İKŞ, data analysis was performed by CTG and JM. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors and Affiliations:

Yönetim ve Organizasyon Bölümü, Sağlık Kurumları İşletmeciliği Programı, Keşap Meslek Yüksekokulu, Giresun Üniversitesi, Giresun, Türkiye.

Ceren Türkdoğan Görgün, İlknur Koçak Şen

School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.

Jim McLennan

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ceren Türkdoğan Görgün

AFAD (Ministry of Internal Affairs, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency) (2018) Disaster Management and Natural Disaster Statistics in Turkey. https://www.afad.gov.tr/kurumlar/afad.gov.tr/35429/xfiles/turkiye_de_afetler.pdf
AFAD (Ministry of Internal Affairs, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency) (2020a) Overview of 2019 and Natural Event Statistics Within the Scope of Disaster Management. https://www.afad.gov.tr/kurumlar/afad.gov.tr/e_Kutuphane/Kurumsal-Raporlar/Afet_Istatistikleri_2020_web.pdf
AFAD (Ministry of Internal Affairs, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency) (2020b) İzmir Seferihisar Earthquake- Announcement 63. https://www.afad.gov.tr/izmir-seferihisar-depremi-duyuru-63-03112020---0020
AFAD (Ministry of Internal Affairs, Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency) (2021) After the Flood Disaster in the Western Black Sea Region, Operations in the Region Continue. https://www.afad.gov.tr/bati-karadeniz-bolgesinde-yasanan-sel-afeti-sonrasinda-bolgedeki-calismalar-devam-ediyor
Agarwal V, Sharma S, Gupta L, Misra DP, Davalbhakta S, Agarwal V, Goel A, Aggarwal S (2020) COVID-19 and Psychological Disaster Preparedness - An Unmet Need. Disaster Med Pub Health Prep 14(3):387–390. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.219
Aydan Ö, Ulusay R, Miyajima M (2003) The bi̇ngöl earthquake of may 1, 2003. https://www.jsce.or.jp/report/19/report/report200307.pdf
Australian Psychological Society (2020) Preparing for natural disasters. https://psychology.org.au/for-the-public/psychology-topics/disasters/preparing-for-disasters
Boylan JL, Lawrence C (2020) What does it mean to psychologically prepare for a disaster? A systematic review. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101480
Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (eds) Testing Structural Equation Models. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 445–455
Byrne BM (2001) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Comrey AL (1988) Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. J Consult Clin Psychol 56(5):754–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.5.754
Council for Excellence in Government (2006) Are we ready? Introducing the Public Readiness Index: a survey based tool to measure the preparedness of individuals, families and communities. https://www.fema.gov/media -library-data/20130 726-1910-25045 -5489/public_readiness_index.pdf
Every D, McLennan J, Reynolds A, Trigg J (2019) Australian householders' psychological preparedness for potential natural hazard threats: An exploration of contributing factors. Int J disaster risk Reduct 38:101203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101203
Field A (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: SAGE. p.659
Guadagnoli E, Velicer WF (1988) Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychol Bull 103(2):265–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis. Pearson College Division
Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Modelling 6:1–55
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022) IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: Climate change 2022 Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
Kline RB (1998) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press, New York
Kriston L, Gunzler C, Harms A, Berner M (2008) Confirmatory factor analysis of the German version of the international index of erectile function (IIEF): a comparison of four models. J Sex Med 5:92–99
Lawshe CH (1975) A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol 28(4):563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, Hong S (1999) Sample size in factor analysis. Psychol Methods 4(1):84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
Malkina-Pykh IG, Pykh YA (2015) Evaluating psychological preparedness for the threat and impacts of climate change disasters and its change after intervention: an integrated modelling approach. Disaster Manage Hum Health Risk IV 1:259–270. https://doi.org/10.2495/dman150231
Martine Woolf JS, Hazelwood M (2013) Extremes, Disaster Management and Adaptation. In: Palutikof J, Boulter SL, Ash AJ, Smith MS, Parry M, Waschka M, Guitart D (eds) Climate Adaptation Futures. Wiley-Blackwell, pp 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118529577.ch7
McGee TK, Penning-Rowsell EC (2023) Environmental hazards today and tomorrow. In T. McGee & E. Penning-Rowsell (Eds.). Handbook of Environmental Hazards and Society, Routledge (pp. 1–9)
McLennan J, Bearman C, Ryan B (2022) Evacuation vs. shelter-in-place under imminent threat from weather related and geophysical environmental hazards. In T. McGee & E. Penning-Rowsell (Eds.). Handbook of Environmental Hazards and Society, Routledge (pp. 335–350)
McLennan J, Marques MD, Every D (2020) Conceptualising and measuring psychological preparedness for disaster: The Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Threat Scale. Nat Hazards 101(1):297–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-03866-4
Nunnally JC (1967) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill. second ed. New York, NY:MacGraw-Hill; 1978
Palupi LS (2021) Psychological preparedness for disaster of coastal communities: A systematic review. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 649(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/649/1/012032
Roudini J, Khankeh HR, Witruk E (2017) Disaster mental health preparedness in the community: A systematic review study. Health Psychol Open 4(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055102917711307
Said NB, Molassiotis A, Chiang VCL (2020) Psychological preparedness for disasters among nurses with disaster field experience: An international online survey. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 46:2212–4209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101533
Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Muller H (2003) Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. MPR-Online 8:23–74
Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (2010) A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling, 3rd edn. Routledge
Spittal MJ, Walkey FH, McClure J, Siegert RJ, Ballantyne KE (2006) The earthquake readiness scale: The development of a valid and reliable unifactorial measure. Nat Hazards 39(1):15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-005-2369-9
Suhaimi AW, Marzuki NA (2016) The Importance of Psychological Preparedness among Flood Victims. 157–162. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2016.08.23
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction Terminology: disaster. https://www.undrr.org/terminology/disaster
Varol N (2021) Geological Disasters in Turkey in 2021. https://yillik.kizilayakademi.org.tr/2021de-turkiyede-yasanan-jeolojik-afetler/
Zakour MJ (2023) Disasters and menral health. In T. McGee & E. Penning-Rowsell (Eds.). Handbook of Environmental Hazards and Society, Routledge (pp. 394–407)
Zulch HR, Morrissey SA, Reser JP, Creed P (2012) Psychological Preparedness for Natural Disasters. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Urban Sustainability and Resilience, UCL, London, UK
Zulch H (2019) Psychological preparedness for natural hazards– improving disaster preparedness policy and practice. https://www.unisdr.org/files/66345_f357zulchpsychologicalpreparednessf.pdf

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 16 May, 2023

Read the published version in Natural Hazards →

Editorial decision: Minor revisions
26 Apr, 2023
Reviewers agreed at journal
13 Mar, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
09 Jan, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
08 Jan, 2023
First submitted to journal
06 Jan, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Threat Scale

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. Introduction

2. Method

2.1 Sample

2.3. Procedure

2.4. Statistical Analyses

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Participants

3.2. Construct Validity Analysis

3.3. Reliability Analysis

4. Discussion

5. Conclusion

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1