Psychometric properties of the Feeling of Unsafety Scale – Arabic (FUSA) in general population adults.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4937928/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Psychometric properties of the Feeling of Unsafety Scale – Arabic (FUSA) in general population adults.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4937928/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: Feelings of unsafety, including fear of crime, uncertainty, or insecurity, can negatively impact individuals by reducing psychological well-being and worsening health. Validating a simple and cost-effective tool to assess the general feeling of unsafety in the Arabic-speaking population, primarily residing in the Middle-East and North-Africa (MENA) region, where safety can be a major concern, would be highly beneficial. The study aimed to translate the Feeling of Unsafety Scale into Arabic (FUSA) and evaluate its psychometric properties, including internal reliability, sex invariance, composite reliability, and correlation with a measure of intolerance of uncertainty.

Methods: A total of 484 Arabic-speaking adults were recruited between March and April 2024. A self-administered anonymous survey was distributed through social media using a Google Forms link. We used FACTOR software to conduct the exploratory factor analysis of the FUSA scale.

Results: The confirmatory factor analysis of the unidimensional model was poor; the exploratory factor analysis conducted on the first split subsample showed a two-factor solution, with the CFA conducted on the second split subsample showing good fit. The latter model fit indices improved even more after adding a correlation between items 2-5 due to high modification indices. the reliability of the scale was excellent as shown by the McDonald’s omega and Cronbach’s alpha values for the total score (ω = 0.89 and α = 0.90), Factor 1 = Feeling of outdoor unsafety (ω = 0.91 and α = 0.91) and Factor 2 = Feeling of indoor unsafety (ω = 0.83 and α = 0.83). Invariance was established between males and females. Good concurrent validity was attested by positive correlations between FUSA scores and intolerance of uncertainty dimensions.

Conclusion: The FUSA is found to be reliable, valid, and cost-effective for measuring the general feeling of unsafety in the general population. To evaluate its practical effectiveness and further enhance data on its construct validity, future studies should assess the scale in diverse contexts and among specific populations.

Feeling of Unsafety Scale-Arabic

Psychometric properties

Validation

Safety is not just a critical part of our lives; it is essential for societies to thrive and grow [1, 2]. A glance at the news reveals that safety is a hot topic in today’s world, with mass shootings, racial issues, and international conflicts shaping our sense of security. Additionally, persistent local and national incidents—like terrorist attacks, police brutality, and mass shootings—constantly disrupt our daily sense of safety [3]. The multifaceted nature of perceived unsafety feelings makes it difficult to be accurately measured, as it intersects with various life aspects, including health [4], work [5], and living conditions [6].

Feelings of unsafety, including fear of crime, uncertainty, or insecurity, can negatively impact individuals by reducing psychological well-being [7] and worsening health [8]. These feelings also affect social outcomes, leading to decreased social participation and lifelong learning, as people engage in more precautionary behaviors and avoid going out in the evening [9, 10]. Additionally, feelings of unsafety and fear of crime in one’s neighborhood have been shown to influence mental and physical health, including depressive symptoms [11], intolerance of uncertainty [12], homicidal ideations, suicide attempts [13–15], and physical well-being indices [16]. In addition, a lack of perceived safety can result in lower levels of outdoor physical activity [16], which in turn negatively impacts cardiometabolic health [17], and increases the levels of obesity [18, 19]. As for the academic settings, when students feel unsafe, their academic performance tends to decline [20–22]. These detrimental consequences of feeling of unsafety underscores the necessity of robust measures that enable to comprehensively assess the construct, especially in most vulnerable populations.

Commonly used scales assessing feeling of unsafety

Most previous research has employed a range of instruments to measure unsafety feeling. Some studies have used a single-item measure (e.g., "I feel safe walking alone late at night" or "I generally feel safe"; [21, 23–27]). However, because feeling unsafe can be influenced by a variety of both external (e.g., prevalence of crime, neighborhood walkability) and internal factors (e.g., anxiety, confidence), and since unsafety can manifest in numerous cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations, relying on a single item may not capture the multifaceted nature of this experience and can significantly reduce its external validity [28]. Other studies tend to measure fear of crime rather than perceived feelings of unsafety. These studies ask participants to express their fear and perceived vulnerability concerning various types of crimes [29–31]. While fear of crime is a crucial aspect of unsafety feelings, it is not the only one that matters.

Another commonly used measure in scientific literature to assess feeling of unsafety is neighborhood walkability [32–36]. The most widely established measure of walkability is the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS; [37]), which assesses participants’ perceptions of their neighborhood design and features related to physical activity, street connectivity, accessibility of walking/cycling, neighborhood aesthetics, neighborhood satisfaction, and traffic/crime safety. An abbreviated version of this measure is also used in the literature [38]. Although these measures include some questions on perceived feeling of unsafety, they do not encompass the complexity of unsafety due to their focus on environmental characteristics and neighborhood perceptions. Since unsafety depends on both the individual perceiver and the environmental conditions, a person might feel safe in some places or generally in their life but perceive their neighborhood as not being walkable [38].

To accurately measure perceived safety, it is essential to consider both subjective factors (such as perceived safety and confidence in one’s safety habits) and more objective factors (such as fear of crime and neighborhood walkability). Therefore, an effective measure of perceived unsafety should collectively focus on all these factors, rather than measuring safety with a single item or any of these factors individually.

Feeling of Unsafety Scale-Arabic (FUSA)

Numerous studies suggest that the feeling of unsafety is multifaceted, encompassing various dimensions such as personal fear versus altruistic fear [39], fear of personal crime versus fear of property crime [40, 41], fear versus trust [42], objective risk versus subjective risk [43], cognitive perception versus affective experience versus behavior, and indoor versus outdoor feeling of unsafety [44].

To better reflect the multifaceted nature of general feeling of unsafety, Elchardus and Smits (2003) [45] developed a brief 8-item self-report questionnaire that measures the construct within the general population. This questionnaire is frequently used in both policy and academic research. It contains items derived from conversations and writings about unsafety; the scale includes items that reference different aspects of time, place, specific situations, as well as feelings, behavior, and cognitive evaluation [46]. Elchardus and Smits (2003, in Dutch [45]) examined the psychometric properties of the scale among adults in two samples from Flanders (Belgium). Confirmatory factor analyses support a one-factor model with good fit measures (sample 1: AGFI = 0.998 / sample 2: AGFI = 0.997) and factor loadings ranging from .50 to .75. Subsequently, an adapted version was developed after removal of two items to be also suitable for use among older adults [46]. For example, the item "Out of fear that I will get mugged, I lock my car door immediately when I get in" was deemed irrelevant as older individuals, particularly the oldest age groups, tend to drive less frequently, leading to a higher likelihood of missing responses. Consequently, Elchardus and colleagues developed an adapted version of the questionnaire, replacing the age-specific questions with two other items [46]. In this context, factor analyses on data from the Belgian Ageing Studies (N = 39,846) provide evidence of good reliability and validity of the Elders Feelings of Unsafety (EFU) scale (EFU) [46]. This adapted 8-item version was chosen to be validated in the Arabic language for two main reasons. The first reason is that we are aiming to provide a measure of feeling of unsafety that can be useful among adults of all ages, including older adults. The second reason is that not all adults in Lebanon or Arab countries drive or own cars.

The present study

Over the past decade, Arab people in general and Lebanese people in particular have endured a series of extremely distressing events, including the 2006 Lebanon War, the COVID-19 pandemic that severely impacted the year 2020, the catastrophic explosion at Beirut's port - one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history, and the ongoing economic crisis threatening basic human needs [47]. These events have all been linked directly or indirectly to increased feeling of unsafety [47]. Moreover, these political, social and economic crises have caused major challenges in the Lebanese population, leading to a worrisome increase in different types of crime, violence, and abuse, including physical assault, verbal harassment, psychological trauma, and sexual exploitation [48]. Hence, it has been showed that economic deprivation creates a sense of unsafety and instability, which is likely to increase vulnerability and fear [49]. Additionally, Lebanon's governance is marked by elite dominance, leading to limited opposition and a lenient stance towards organized crime [50]. The economic decline and political turmoil have further impaired the country's ability to effectively tackle organized crime. This overall governance environment has created conditions that are conducive to organized crime, as criminal networks exploit the system's weaknesses [50]. Thus, the country would be an appropriate context to validate the Feeling of Unsafety Scale in Arabic (FUSA). Thus, this study aims to examine the psychometric properties of the FUSA in terms of factor structure, validity, reliability and measurement invariance across sex. We hypothesized that the FUSA would: (1) replicate the original one-factor structure, (2) demonstrate good composite reliability and measurement invariance between sexes (males vs. females), and (3) show appropriate correlations with intolerance of uncertainty.

Study Design

Data for this cross-sectional study were collected via a Google Form link between March and April 2024. The project was disseminated on social media platforms, along with an estimated time commitment. The research team actively engaged with potential participants, inviting them to take part in the survey; participants who agreed were encouraged to share the survey link with others, using the snowball sampling technique.

To be eligible for participation, individuals had to be Lebanese residents and adult citizens (aged above 18 years). Those who chose not to participate were excluded. Measures were taken to maintain data integrity, including checking Internet Protocol (IP) addresses to prevent multiple survey submissions from the same participant.

Upon providing digital informed consent, participants were asked to complete various assessment tools in a predetermined sequence to mitigate any potential order-related biases. It's important to emphasize that the survey was anonymous, and participants voluntarily completed it without receiving any compensation.

Minimal Sample Size Calculation

A minimum of 10 [51] and 3–20 [52] participants per scale’s item was needed for the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses respectively.

Translation Procedure

Following Beaton's guidelines [53], the forward-backward translation method was used for the scale. Initially, two Lebanese translators, who were not involved in the study, translated the English version into Arabic. Then, two Lebanese psychologists fluent in English back-translated the Arabic version into English. To verify the accuracy of the translation, the original English version was compared with the translated version. Any discrepancies were identified and resolved by a committee consisting of the research team and the translators [54]. Additionally, the scale was adapted to the Arab context to ensure that item wording was clearly understood and that there was conceptual equivalence between the original and Arabic versions in both contexts [55]. After translation and adaptation, a pilot study with 20 participants was conducted to confirm that all questions were comprehensible, and no changes were made following the pilot study.

Questionnaire

The survey was developed in Arabic, the official language of Lebanon, and structured into three main sections. The initial section served as an online consent checkpoint, ensuring voluntary participation and addressing ethical concerns including confidentiality and anonymity of responses. It also provided an overview of the project and instructions for completing the questionnaire. The second part of the survey aimed to collect socio-demographic data from participants, including details such as age, sex, and Household Crowding Index (HCI). The latter reflects the Socioeconomic Status (SES) of the individual and is calculated by dividing the number of persons by the number of rooms in the house except the kitchen and bathrooms [56]; higher HCI scores reflect a lower SES. The third section encompassed two detailed measures, as outlined below.

The Elders Feelings of Unsafety (EFU) scale contains eight items based on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (feeling completely safe) to 5 (feeling completely unsafe) (e.g. “You have to be extra careful when you are out on the streets at night”) [57]. Higher scores indicate higher feeling of unsafety.

The Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS-12). The IUS-12 [58], validated in Lebanon [59], a shortened version of the IUS-27, consists of 12 items scored on a Likert scale from 1 (Not at all characteristic of me) to 5 (Very characteristic of me). The IUS-12 includes two subscales: prospective anxiety and inhibitory anxiety, with higher scores indicating higher levels of anxiety. The reliability coefficients were excellent for the prospective anxiety (ω = 0.91 and α = 0.91) and inhibitory anxiety (ω = 0.92 and α = 0.91) subscales.

Statistical analysis

The factor structure of the FUSA was explored using the EFA and CFA using RStudio (Version 4.2.2.). First, we checked the original items from the unidimensional version, revealing a very bad fit to the present data. Consequently, we decided to divide the sample into two subsamples of 33% (n = 167) and 67% (n = 317) randomly. EFA was performed on the first half sample (n = 167) based on the principal component extraction approach and the orthogonal “Varimax” rotation. Factors were extracted for further analysis based on eigenvalues on the Scree plot (Factors with eigenvalues > 1). The data viability for factorability was evaluated through Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sample adequacy (Values > 0.7) and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity (P < 0.05) [60].

After that, we performed a CFA on the other subsample (n = 317) to confirm the derived factor structure from EFA. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using the “Lavaan” and “SemTools” package [61, 62]. Values greater than 0.90 for the CFI and TLI, values closer to 1.00 for the GFI indicate good model fit. However, values for the RMSEA are expected to be at or below 0.08 to represent a good model fit, whereas values ≤ 0.10 are indicative of an acceptable fit [63, 64].

To examine sex invariance of the FUSA scores, we conducted multi-group CFA assessed at the configural, metric, and scalar levels. Following the recommendations of Chen [65], we accepted ΔCFI ≤ 0.010 and ΔRMSEA ≤ 0.015 or ΔSRMR ≤ 0.010 as evidence of invariance.

The FUSA score was considered normally distributed as shown by values of the skewness (= -0.772) and kurtosis (= 1.286). Pearson correlation test was used to correlate two scores, whereas the independent t test was used to compare the mean feeling of unsafety scores between males and females. Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega were computed to assess the reliability of the scales used.

Four hundred eighty-four adults filled the survey, with a mean age of 27.74 ± 11.17 years, 68.4% females and a mean HCI of 1.12 ± .47 person/room.

First, the unidimensional version, revealed a poor fit: RMSEA of 0.20 [90% CI 0.18, 0.22], CFI of 0.83, TLI of 0.77, a GFI of 0.80 and an SRMR of 0.10.

EFA with Varimax rotation extracted two factors from the FUSA measure. Table 1 below shows the factor loadings of 8 items of the FUSA measure for two extracted factors from the EFA.

Table 1

Factor loadings of 8 items of the FUSA measure extracted from the exploratory factor analysis.
		Extracted factors*
Items		F1: Feeling of outdoor safety	F2: Feeling of indoor safety
1	You have to be extra careful when you are out on the streets at night.	.88
2	These days, it is not safe to be out on the streets at night.	.85
3	These last 10 years, the streets have become less safe.	.71
4	After nightfall, I don’t open the door when someone rings.		.77
5	These days, it is not safe to let children out on the streets without supervision.	.75
6	I seldom go out alone because I am afraid of being mugged.		.77
7	These days an alarm system is more than just a gadget.		.57
8	When I go away on holiday, I don’t dare to leave my house unwatched.		.66
*Exploratory factor analysis with Varimax rotation; Factor loadings < 0.4 are not shown for simplicity

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using the two-factor solution that derived from the EFA; the results showed good fit: CFI of 0.93, TLI of 0.89, a GFI of 0.91 and an SRMR of 0.05, but a poor RMSEA of 0.14 [90% CI 0.12, 0.16].

To improve this main model, we examined the Modification Index (MI). The MI showed a strong positive covariance between item 2 and 5. After considering this covariance a new modified model was created. The new modified model showed good fit model indices, a CFI of 0.95, a TLI of 0.92, a GFI of 0.93, an SRMR of 0.05 and a decreased RMSEA of 0.12 [90% CI of RMSEA (0.10, 0.14)].

The fit indices of the second order CFA were acceptable as follows: CFI = 0.958, TLI = 0.902, SRMR = 0.048 and RMSEA of 0.130 [90% CI of RMSEA (0.108, 0.153)]. It is of note that the reliability of the scale was excellent as shown by the McDonald’s omega and Cronbach’s alpha values for the total score (ω = 0.89 and α = 0.90), Factor 1 = Feeling of outdoor unsafety (ω = 0.91 and α = 0.91) and Factor 2 = Feeling of indoor unsafety (ω = 0.83 and α = 0.83). The standardized loading factors deriving from the CFA analysis are summarized in Fig. 1.

Sex invariance

We were able to show the invariance across sex at the configural, metric, and scalar levels (Table 2). A significantly higher mean feeling of unsafety total score (30.62 ± 6.12 vs 28.97 ± 5.68; t(482) = -2.82; p = 0.005) and Factor 1 = Feeling of outdoor unsafety (16.34 ± 3.36 vs 15.33 ± 3.08; t(482) = -3.13; p = 0.002), but not Factor 2 = Feeling of indoor unsafety (14.28 ± 3.48 vs 13.63 ± 3.23; t(482) = -1.95; p = 0.052) were found in females vs males.

Table 2

Measurement Invariance of the Feeling of Unsafety Scale – Arabic (FUSA) scale across sex in the total sample.
Model	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR	Model Comparison	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA	ΔSRMR
Configural	0.947	0.110	0.077	Configural and metric	-0.005	0.11138	0.011
Metric	0.952	0.110	0.067	Metric and scalar	-0.003	0.064314	0.011
Scalar	0.949	0.104	0.077	Metric and scalar	-0.003	0.064314	0.011

Concurrent validity

Higher feeling of unsafety was significantly associated with higher prospective anxiety (r = 0.21, p = 0.001) and inhibitory anxiety (r = 0.18; p < 0.001).

Table 3

Pearson correlation matrix between continuous scores.
	1	2	3	4
1. FUSA – Total scores	1
2. FUSA - Feeling of outdoor unsafety	0.89***	1
3. FUSA - Feeling of indoor unsafety	0.90***	0.61***	1
4. Intolerance of Uncertainty - Prospective anxiety dimension	0.21***	0.27***	0.11*	1
5. Intolerance of Uncertainty - Inhibitory anxiety dimension	0.18***	0.16***	0.17***	0.78***

FUSA: Feelings of Unsafety Scale – Arabic. *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001

The findings from this study suggest that the FUSA measure can reliably and validly measure general feelings of unsafety in the Arabic-speaking adult general population. In addition, the results support the measurement invariance of the Arabic scale across sex group. Overall, the FUSA is suggested to be a brief, easy-to-use and psychometrically sound measure of unsafety feelings that is suitable for use in the Arab contexts.

In our study, the instrument exhibited a two-factor structure, contrary to the one-factor model presented in the original paper on adults living in Flanders (Belgium) [45] and the validation conducted among Belgian older adults [57]. Factor 1 includes items 1, 2, 3 and 5 (e.g., “These days, it is not safe to be out on the streets at night”), was labelled “Feeling of outdoor unsafety”, and reflects feeling unsafe while being on the streets. Factor 2 includes items 4, 6, 7, and 8 (e.g., “After nightfall, I don’t open the door when someone rings”), was labelled “Feeling of indoor unsafety”, and reflects unsafety feelings related to being at home. Our findings thus support distinguishing between two different dimensions, rather than relying solely on one dimension or the total FUSA score. Dividing items into two factors about feeling unsafe and while including references to specific spatial contexts can be highly relevant in assessing perceived safety issues accurately. Consequently, it can be suggested that the two-factor model is more effective in capturing the various dimensions of the feeling of unsafety [39]. However, future studies are still required to confirm whether this two-factor solution holds up across different countries, cultural groups, populations and settings. Despite the brevity of FUSA, its reliability was remarkably high. In our study, the internal reliability for the total score ranged from acceptable to excellent (ω = 0.89 and α = 0.90), closely mirroring the results from the Belgian Ageing Studies (N = 39,846), which demonstrated good reliability with an acceptable Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89 [46].

Another finding of our research is that measurement invariance was supported across sex groups. Therefore, the FUSA can be used to make psychometrically sound comparisons between individuals with different characteristics (males versus females). It is important to note that previous papers did not assess this important psychometric property, hence, the originality of our paper. Future studies are recommended to analyze in depth the measurement invariance before making any conclusions about sex differences in feeling of unsafety. A significantly higher mean of feeling of unsafety was found in females compared to males, which is in line with previous studies [66, 67]. More precisely, higher feeling of outdoor unsafety was found in females compared to males reflecting the integrated nature of the home and neighborhood as a psychosocial environment affecting the feeling of unsafety [68]. Differences between outdoor and indoor feeling of unsafety between males and females can be explained by the perceived threat of rape, patriarchy, differential socialization, and physical vulnerability [69, 70]. A lower level of perceived safety among females is not just a random local phenomenon but a multicultural one [71]. Our findings align with those of May et al. (2010) [72] who found that females experience significantly higher feelings of unsafety and fear of crime victimization and are more likely to perceive themselves at greater risk of victimization than men, specifically in outdoor areas where they have less control and power. Additionally, females engage in avoidance behavior, more often than males, such as avoiding certain outdoor activities or places due to fear of violence or crime victimization such as woods, nightlife activities, and outdoor activities [73]. The fact that females fear violent crimes more than males, despite being less frequently victimized, is known as the "paradox of fear of victimization" (e.g., [43, 74]). The disparity in perceived safety between sexes is also based on the assumption that females are considered more vulnerable to criminal acts, not only due to the likelihood of victimization but also because of their inability to manage the consequences of physical, psychological, and economic losses resulting from their victimization [75, 76]. According to Rader, Cossman, Allison (2009) [77], and Scott (2003) [78], in the context of the social learning theory of the socialization of sex perception of safety by Rader and Hayes (2011) [79], females are exposed to information indicating that they are physically vulnerable to victimization; that there is a higher likelihood of victimization by male attackers, and that they are more likely to be victimized in public places at night.

Lastly and as expected, our findings revealed that higher feeling of unsafety was significantly associated with higher intolerance to uncertainty, which provides support for the concurrent validity of the FUSA. When people judge a situation or environment to be especially unsafe, when they feel they have little personal control over its occurrence [80], and when people are uncertain about the presence of safety, the stress response is released [81]. Consequently, when unsafety feeling or victimization is psychologically proximate, then uncertainty and the lack of cognitive closure will bring with it a sense of negative affect that makes worry more frequent [12].

Clinical Implications

This study has significant implications, providing a valid and reliable tool for clinicians and researchers who work in Arab settings to assess feelings of unsafety among the general population, thereby enhancing research opportunities in Arabic-speaking populations, especially those who live in the increasingly unsafe MENA region. Moreover, the validation of the FUSA may help in understanding the unsafety feeling, enabling the development of strategies to reduce social distrust and promote healthy social coexistence and welfare. Additionally, the availability of an Arabic version of the FUSA facilitates cross-cultural comparisons.

Limitations

This study has several limitations similar to most research. The sample was obtained through snowball sampling technique, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the cross-sectional design of this study prevents us from determining causality or the temporal sequence of relationships between variables. Furthermore, some important psychometric properties, such as inter-rater and test-retest reliability, were not examined in this study. Responses were self-reported by participants, which predisposes us to an information bias. To address these limitations, future research should include more representative samples of Lebanese adults (in clinical and non-clinical settings), including minorities and individuals with different sexual orientations, and should adopt longitudinal and cross-cultural approaches. Finally, further studies are needed to explore whether the FUSA scale can be applied to Arabic-speaking adults from other Arab countries with different social and cultural backgrounds.

Our findings provide new evidence on the good psychometric properties of the FUSA, supporting its suitability for assessing the general feeling of unsafety among Arabic-speaking adults, particularly in Lebanon. In particular, the FUSA was found to be reliable, valid, and cost-effective for measuring the general feeling of unsafety in the general population. However, further research is recommended to extend the validation of this translated measure to a more diverse Arabic-speaking population. This expansion would enhance the generalizability and applicability of the FUSA across various cultural contexts within the Arabic-speaking community.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate: Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the ethics committee of the School of Pharmacy at the Lebanese International University (2024ERC-024-LIUSOP). Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects; the online submission of the soft copy was considered equivalent to receiving a written informed consent. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication:Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials: All data generated or analyzed during this study are not publicly available due the restrictions from the ethics committee, but are available upon a reasonable request from the corresponding author (SH).

Competing interests: The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding:None.

Author contributions:FFR, SO and SH designed the study; SO drafted the manuscript; ZB and SH carried out the analysis and interpreted the results; FS, MD and DM collected the data. FFR and SH reviewed the paper for intellectual content; all authors reviewed the final manuscript and gave their consent.

Acknowledgements:The authors would like to thank all participants.

Galtung J: Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of peace research 1969, 6(3):167-191.
Maslow AH: A theory of human motivation. Psychological review 1943, 50(4):370.
Pinker S: The better angels of our nature: A history of violence and humanity. (No Title) 2012.
Dierynck B, Leroy H, Savage GT, Choi E: The role of individual and collective mindfulness in promoting occupational safety in health care. Medical care research and review 2017, 74(1):79-96.
Sheehan C, Donohue R, Shea T, Cooper B, De Cieri H: Leading and lagging indicators of occupational health and safety: The moderating role of safety leadership. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2016, 92:130-138.
Maillot P, Dommes A, Dang N-T, Vienne F: Training the elderly in pedestrian safety: Transfer effect between two virtual reality simulation devices. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2017, 99:161-170.
Phelan JE, Sanchez DT, Broccoli TL: The danger in sexism: The links among fear of crime, benevolent sexism, and well-being. Sex Roles 2010, 62:35-47.
Jackson J, Stafford M: Public health and fear of crime: A prospective cohort study. The British Journal of Criminology 2009, 49(6):832-847.
Kappes C, Greve W, Hellmers S: Fear of crime in old age: Precautious behaviour and its relation to situational fear. European journal of ageing 2013, 10:111-125.
Markowitz FE, Bellair PE, Liska AE, Liu J: Extending social disorganization theory: Modeling the relationships between cohesion, disorder, and fear. Criminology 2001, 39(2):293-319.
Wilson-Genderson M, Pruchno R: Effects of neighborhood violence and perceptions of neighborhood safety on depressive symptoms of older adults. Social science & medicine 2013, 85:43-49.
Jackson J: Cognitive closure and risk sensitivity in the fear of crime. Legal and Criminological Psychology 2015, 20(2):222-240.
Taliaferro LA, McMorris BJ, Rider GN, Eisenberg ME: Risk and protective factors for self-harm in a population-based sample of transgender youth. Archives of suicide research 2019, 23(2):203-221.
Lear MK, Perry KM, Stacy SE, Canen EL, Hime SJ, Pepper CM: Differential suicide risk factors in rural middle and high school students. Psychiatry research 2020, 284:112773.
Moore H, Benbenishty R, Astor RA, Rice E: The positive role of school climate on school victimization, depression, and suicidal ideation among school-attending homeless youth. Journal of School Violence 2018, 17(3):298-310.
Pearson AL, Breetzke GD: The association between the fear of crime, and mental and physical wellbeing in New Zealand. Social Indicators Research 2014, 119:281-294.
Baldock KL, Paquet C, Howard NJ, Coffee NT, Taylor AW, Daniel M: Gender-specific associations between perceived and objective neighbourhood crime and metabolic syndrome. PLoS One 2018, 13(7):e0201336.
Ferrao MM, Gama A, Marques VR, Mendes LL, Mourao I, Nogueira H, Velasquez-Melendez G, Padez C: Association between parental perceptions of residential neighbourhood environments and childhood obesity in Porto, Portugal. The European Journal of Public Health 2013, 23(6):1027-1031.
Sundquist K, Eriksson U, Mezuk B, Ohlsson H: Neighborhood walkability, deprivation and incidence of type 2 diabetes: a population-based study on 512,061 Swedish adults. Health & place 2015, 31:24-30.
Hamada S, Kaneko H, Ogura M, Yamawaki A, Maezono J, Sillanmäki L, Sourander A, Honjo S: Association between bullying behavior, perceived school safety, and self‐cutting: a Japanese population‐based school survey. Child and adolescent mental health 2018, 23(3):141-147.
Nijs MM, Bun CJ, Tempelaar WM, de Wit NJ, Burger H, Plevier CM, Boks MP: Perceived school safety is strongly associated with adolescent mental health problems. Community mental health journal 2014, 50:127-134.
Martin-Storey A, Crosnoe R: Perceived neighborhood safety and adolescent school functioning. Applied developmental science 2014, 18(2):61-75.
Booth J, Ayers SL, Marsiglia FF: Perceived neighborhood safety and psychological distress: Exploring protective factors. J Soc & Soc Welfare 2012, 39:137.
Thibodeaux J: Student perceptions of safety in perceived similar and nonsimilar race high schools. Journal of school violence 2013, 12(4):378-394.
Peña-García A, Hurtado A, Aguilar-Luzón M: Impact of public lighting on pedestrians’ perception of safety and well-being. Safety science 2015, 78:142-148.
Latham K, Clarke PJ: The role of neighborhood safety in recovery from mobility limitations: Findings from a national sample of older Americans (1996–2008). Research on aging 2013, 35(4):481-502.
Eriksson U, Hochwälder J, Sellström E: Perceptions of community trust and safety–consequences for children’s well‐being in rural and urban contexts. Acta Paediatrica 2011, 100(10):1373-1378.
Syropoulos S: The Creation and Validation of the Perceived Safety Scale. 2018.
Barni D, Vieno A, Roccato M, Russo S: Basic personal values, the country’s crime rate and the fear of crime. Social Indicators Research 2016, 129:1057-1074.
Rollwagen H: The relationship between dwelling type and fear of crime. Environment and Behavior 2016, 48(2):365-387.
De Biasi A: Transforming vacant lots: Investigating an alternative approach to reducing fear of crime. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2017, 50:125-137.
Bracy NL, Millstein RA, Carlson JA, Conway TL, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Kerr J, Cain KL, Frank LD, King AC: Is the relationship between the built environment and physical activity moderated by perceptions of crime and safety? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2014, 11:1-13.
Lee SM, Conway TL, Frank LD, Saelens BE, Cain KL, Sallis JF: The relation of perceived and objective environment attributes to neighborhood satisfaction. Environment and behavior 2017, 49(2):136-160.
Foster S, Hooper P, Knuiman M, Christian H, Bull F, Giles-Corti B: Safe RESIDential Environments? A longitudinal analysis of the influence of crime-related safety on walking. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2016, 13:1-9.
Datar A, Nicosia N, Wong E, Shier V: Neighborhood environment and children's physical activity and body mass index: evidence from military personnel installation assignments. Childhood Obesity 2015, 11(2):130-138.
Brown BB, Werner CM, Smith KR, Tribby CP, Miller HJ: Physical activity mediates the relationship between perceived crime safety and obesity. Preventive medicine 2014, 66:140-144.
Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D: Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. American journal of public health 2003, 93(9):1552-1558.
Cerin E, Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD: Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale: validity and development of a short form. Medicine and science in sports and exercise 2006, 38(9):1682.
Snedker KA: Altruistic and vicarious fear of crime: Fear for others and gendered social roles. In: Sociological Forum: 2006: Springer; 2006: 163-195.
Jackson J: Validating new measures of the fear of crime. International journal of social research methodology 2005, 8(4):297-315.
Acierno R, Rheingold AA, Resnick HS, Kilpatrick DG: Predictors of fear of crime in older adults. Journal of anxiety disorders 2004, 18(3):385-396.
Walklate S, Mythen G: How scared are we? The British Journal of Criminology 2008, 48(2):209-225.
Lee M: Inventing fear of crime: Willan; 2013.
Allik M, Kearns A: “There goes the fear”: feelings of safety at home and in the neighborhood: The role of personal, social, and service factors. Journal of Community Psychology 2017, 45(4):543-563.
Elchardus M, Smits W, Lemaître J, Van Geel H: Threatened, vulnerable and helpless: fear of crime in Flanders. 1998–2002. Flanders estimated 2003:99-136.
De Donder L, De Witte N, Dury S, Buffel T, Brosens D, Smetcoren A-S, Verté E, Van Regenmortel S, Verté D: Feelings of unsafety among older people: Psychometric properties of the EFU-scale. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2015, 191:1095-1101.
Al Boukhary R, Hallit R, Postigo A, Malaeb D, Dabbous M, Sakr F, El Khatib S, Fekih-Romdhane F, Hallit S, Obeid S: The effect of gratitude on death anxiety is fully mediated by optimism in Lebanese adults following the 2023 earthquake. BMC psychology 2024, 12(1):2.
Unmasking Lebanon’s Multi-Faceted Violence Crisis. Available from: https://nowlebanon.com/unmasking-lebanons-multi-faceted-violence-crisis/ [Accessed on July 25, 2024]
Lin K: A cross-national multilevel analysis of fear of crime: Exploring the roles of institutional confidence and institutional performance. Crime & Delinquency 2023, 69(12):2437-2459.
Global Organized Crime Index: Lebanon. Available from: https://ocindex.net/country/lebanon [Accessed on July 25, 2024]. 2023.
Comrey AL, Lee HB: A first course in factor analysis: Psychology press; 2013.
Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TLJIjot: Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. 2005, 5(2):159-168.
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB: Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000, 25(24):3186-3191.
Fenn J, Tan C-S, George S: Development, validation and translation of psychological tests. BJPsych advances 2020, 26(5):306-315.
Ambuehl B, Inauen J: Contextualized measurement scale adaptation: a 4-Step tutorial for health psychology research. International journal of environmental research and public health 2022, 19(19):12775.
Melki I, Beydoun H, Khogali M, Tamim H, Yunis KJJoE, Health C: Household crowding index: a correlate of socioeconomic status and inter-pregnancy spacing in an urban setting. 2004, 58(6):476-480.
De Donder L, De Witte N, Dury S, Buffel T, Verté D: Individual risk factors of feelings of unsafety in later life. European Journal of Ageing 2012, 9:233-242.
Vadivel B, Azadfar Z, Talib MA, Mutlak DA, Suksatan W, Abbood AAA, Sultan MQ, Allen KA, Patra I, Hammid AT: RETRACTED: Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12: Psychometric Properties of This Construct Among Iranian Undergraduate Students. Frontiers in psychology 2022, 13:894316.
Chaaya R, Hallit R, Postigo A, Malaeb D, Sakr F, Dabbous M, Alhuwailah A, Shuwiekh HAM, Obeid S, Fekih-Romdhane F: Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the intolerance of uncertainty scale: a multinational study. BMC psychology 2024, 12(1):156.
Hu L-t, Bentler PM: Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological methods 1998, 3(4):424.
Jorgensen TD, Pornprasertmanit S, Schoemann AM, Rosseel Y, Miller P, Quick C, Garnier-Villarreal M, Selig J, Boulton A, Preacher K: Package ‘semtools’. Website: https://cran r-project org/web/packages/semTools/semTools pdf 2016.
Rosseel Y, Jorgensen T, Rockwood N, Oberski D, Byrnes J, Vanbrabant L, Savalei V, Merkle E, Hallquist M, Rhemtulla M: lavaan: Latent variable analysis (0.6-7)[Computer software]. In.: Google Scholar; 2020.
Hu Lt, Bentler PM: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal 1999, 6(1):1-55.
Mulaik SA, James LR, Van Alstine J, Bennett N, Lind S, Stilwell CD: Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological bulletin 1989, 105(3):430.
Chen FF: Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal 2007, 14(3):464-504.
Cui Q, Zhang Y, Yang G, Huang Y, Chen Y: Analysing gender differences in the perceived safety from street view imagery. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 2023, 124:103537.
Rišová K, Madajová MS: Gender differences in a walking environment safety perception: A case study in a small town of Banská Bystrica (Slovakia). Journal of transport geography 2020, 85:102723.
Kearns A, Whitley E, Bond L, Tannahill C: The residential psychosocial environment and mental wellbeing in deprived areas. International Journal of Housing Policy 2012, 12(4):413-438.
ERKAN NÇ, SEVIN TOPÇU B: Gender-based differences in fear of crime in public spaces: An investigation of a safe district in Istanbul. Urbani Izziv 2021, 32(2).
Johansson S, Haandrikman K: Gendered fear of crime in the urban context: A comparative multilevel study of women’s and men’s fear of crime. Journal of Urban Affairs 2023, 45(7):1238-1264.
Bozogáňová M: Gender and gender roles in the context of the perceived safety. In: Sociální procesy a osobnost 2015 Otázky a výzvy: Sborník příspěvků. edn.: Masarykova univerzita nakladatelství; 2016: 49-55.
May DC, Rader NE, Goodrum S: A gendered assessment of the ‘‘threat of victimization’’: Examining gender differences in fear of crime, perceived risk, avoidance, and defensive behaviors. Criminal justice review 2010, 35(2):159-182.
Borg A-L: ‘This place does not feel safe’: safe and unsafe spaces in Swedish school-age educare. Children's Geographies 2023, 21(6):1044-1057.
Fetchenhauer D, Buunk BP: How to explain gender differences in fear of crime: Towards an evolutionary approach. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender 2005, 7(2):95-113.
Pain R: Gender, race, age and fear in the city. Urban studies 2001, 38(5-6):899-913.
Reid LW, Konrad M: The gender gap in fear: Assessing the interactive effects of gender and perceived risk on fear of crime. Sociological Spectrum 2004, 24(4):399-425.
Rader NE, Cossman JS, Allison M: Considering the gendered nature of constrained behavior practices among male and female college students. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 2009, 25(3):282-299.
Scott H: Stranger Danger: Explaining Women's Fear of Crime. Western criminology review 2003, 4(3).
Rader NE, Haynes SH: Gendered fear of crime socialization: An extension of Akers’s social learning theory. Feminist Criminology 2011, 6(4):291-307.
Jackson J: Revisiting risk sensitivity in the fear of crime. Journal of research in crime and delinquency 2011, 48(4):513-537.
Freeston M, Komes J: Revisiting uncertainty as a felt sense of unsafety: The somatic error theory of intolerance of uncertainty. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 2023, 79:101827.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Psychometric properties of the Feeling of Unsafety Scale – Arabic (FUSA) in general population adults.

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

INTRODUCTION

Commonly used scales assessing feeling of unsafety

Feeling of Unsafety Scale-Arabic (FUSA)

The present study

METHODS

Study Design

Minimal Sample Size Calculation

Translation Procedure

Questionnaire

Statistical analysis

RESULTS

Sex invariance

Concurrent validity

FUSA: Feelings of Unsafety Scale – Arabic. *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001

DISCUSSION

Clinical Implications

Limitations

CONCLUSION

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1