Factor structure of Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Questionnaire (PVDQ): Exploratory and confirmatory methods

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant professor, Department of Educational Research, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

2 Postdoc researcher, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

3 Counselor in Ministry of Education, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.

4 Psychotherapist in private clinic, Mashhad, Iran.

10.22038/JFMH.2024.80050.3131

Abstract

Introduction: The present study aimed to investigate the psychometric features of the Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Questionnaire (PVDQ).
 
Materials and Methods: A sample of 370 adults from Karaj City, Iran, was selected using convenience sampling and completed PVDQ. Research data were collected over three months between March and June 2020. Half of the data was collected through an online questionnaire, and the other half was collected through a paper-pencil questionnaire. To investigate the factor analysis, the Exploratory Structural Equation Model and Confirmatory Factor Analysis were used. Data were analyzed using R and some packages, including psych, lavaan, and Mplus.
 
Results: The results showed that, unlike the original two-factor structure, which removed items 3 and 14, the three-factor structure for PVDQ has the maximum fitness and justified interpretation. The alpha of the three factors was 0.83, 0.76, and 0.70, and their AVE index was 0.52, 0.51, and 0.49, respectively.
 
Conclusion: Although the factor structure in the original version is two factors (including germ aversion and perceived infectability subscales), the results of the present study have shown three-factor structures that consist of germ aversion, personal infectability, and interpersonal infectability. Indeed, it shows differences in respondents' perceptions of transmission in the present study, including personal vulnerability to infection and feelings of vulnerability from social relationships to infection.

Keywords

References

  1. Karlsson LC, Soveri A, Lewandowsky S, Karlsson L, Karlsson H, Nolvi S, et al. The behavioral immune system and vaccination intentions during the coronavirus pandemic. Pers Individ Dif 2022; 185: 111295.
  2. Commodari E. The role of sociodemographic and psychological variables on risk perception of the flu. Sage Open 2017; 7(3): 2158244017718890.
  3. Makhanova A, Shepherd MA. Behavioral immune system linked to responses to the threat of COVID-19. Pers Individ Dif 2020; 167: 110221.
  4. Shook NJ, Sevi B, Lee J, Oosterhoff B, Fitzgerald HN. Disease avoidance in the time of COVID-19: The behavioral immune system is associated with concern and preventative health behaviors. PLoS ONE 2020; 15(8): e0238015.
  5. Lee SY, Yang HJ, Kim G, Cheong HK, Choi BY. Preventive behaviors by the level of perceived infection sensitivity during the Korea outbreak of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome in 2015. Epidemiol Health 2016; 38: e2016051.
  6. Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, McCaul KD, Weinstein ND. Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination. Health Psychol 2007; 26(2): 136.
  7. Wise T, Zbozinek TD, Michelini, G, Hagan CC. Changes in risk perception and protective behavior during the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. R Soc Open Sci 2020; 7(9): 200742.
  8. Brug J, Aro AR, Oenema A, De Zwart O, Richardus JH, Bishop GD. SARS risk perception, knowledge, precautions, and information sources, the Netherlands. Emerg Infect Dis 2004; 10(8): 1486.
  9. Poletti P, Ajelli M, Merler S. Risk perception and effectiveness of uncoordinated behavioral responses in an emerging epidemic. Math Biosci 2012 Aug 1; 238(2): 80-89
  10. Cava MA, Fay KE, Beanlands HJ, McCay EA, Wignall R. Risk perception and compliance with quarantine during the SARS outbreak. J Nurs Scholarsh 2005; 37(4): 343-7.
  11. Barr M, Raphael B, Taylor M, Stevens G, Jorm L, Giffin M, et al. Pandemic influenza in Australia: Using telephone surveys to measure perceptions of threat and willingness to comply. BMC Infect Dis 2008; 8(1): 1-4.
  12. Bults M, Beaujean DJ, de Zwart O, Kok G, van Empelen P, van Steenbergen JE, et al. Perceived risk, anxiety, and behavioural responses of the general public during the early phase of the Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands: results of three consecutive online surveys. BMC Public Health 2011; 11(1): 1-3.
  13. Taglioni F, Cartoux M, Dellagi K, Dalban C, Fianu A, Carrat F, et al. The influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in Reunion Island: Knowledge, perceived risk and precautionary behaviour. BMC Infect Dis 2013; 13(1): 1-2.
  14. Zuckerman JN, Hoet B. Hepatitis B immunization in travelers: Poor risk perception and inadequate protection. Travel Med Infect Dis 2008; 6(5): 315-20.
  15. Yang XY, Gong RN, Sassine S, Morsa M, Tchogna AS, Drouin O, et al. Risk perception of COVID-19 infection and adherence to preventive measures among adolescents and young adults. Children 2020; 7(12): 311.
  16. Hromatko I, Grus A, Kolđeraj G. Do islanders have a more reactive behavioral immune system? Social cognitions and preferred interpersonal distances during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychol 2021; 12: 647586.
  17. Aerts C, Revilla M, Duval L, Paaijmans K, Chandrabose J, Cox H, Sicuri E. Understanding the role of disease knowledge and risk perception in shaping preventive behavior for selected vector-borne diseases in Guyana. PLoSNegl Trop Dis 2020; 14(4): e0008149.
  18. Duncan LA, Schaller M, Park JH. Perceived vulnerability to disease: Development and validation of a 15-item self-report instrument. Pers Individ Dif 2009; 47(6): 541-6.
  19. Ahmadzadeh M, Ghamarani A, Samadi M, Shamsi A, Azizollah A. The investigation of validity and reliability of a scale of perceived vulnerability to disease in Iran. British journal of social sciences 2013; 1(4): 43-51.
  20. Fukukawa Y, Oda R, Usami H, Kawahito J. [Development of a Japanese version of the Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Scale]. Shinrigaku Kenkyu 2014; 85(2): 188-95. (Japanese)
  21. Díaz A, Soriano JF, Beleña Á. Perceived vulnerability to disease questionnaire: Factor structure, psychometric properties and gender differences. Pers Individ Dif 2016; 101: 42-9.
  22. Moradi Motlagh M, Nainian MR, Fata L, Gholami Fesharaki M, Ghaedi G. Investigation of the moderating role of perceived vulnerability to infectious diseases regarding the relationship between disgust and fear of contamination. Avicenna journal of clinical medicine 2019; 26(1): 34-43.
  23. Kim KH. The relation among fit indexes, power, and sample size in structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Modeling 2005; 12(3): 368-90.
  24. Ferreira J, Magalhães AC, Bem-Haja P, Alho L, Silva CF, Soares SC. Perceived vulnerability to disease questionnaire: Psychometric validation with a Portuguese sample. BMC Psychol 2022; 10(1): 130.
  25. Chiesi F, Marunic G, Tagliaferro C, Lau C. The psychometric properties and gender invariance of the Italian version of the Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Questionnaire (I-PVDQ) during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Psychol 2022; 10(1): 321.
  26. Revelle W. Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research. Version 1.9. 12. Evanston, Illinois, USA: Northwestern University, 2020.
  27. R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.5. 2, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2018). 2019.
    Available from: https://www.R-project.org/
  28. Reise SP, Bonifay WE, Haviland MG. Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. J Pers Assess 2013; 95(2): 129-40.
  29. Golino H, Christensen AP. EGAnet: Exploratory Graph Analysis: A framework for estimating the number of dimensions in multivariate data using network psychometrics. R Package Version 0.8. 0. 2019. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/EGAnet/EGAnet.pdf
  30. Lavaan RY. An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). J Stat Softw 2012; 48(2): 1-36.
  31. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. 1998-2011. Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles (CA): Muthén and Muthén; 1998.
  32. Golino HF, Epskamp S. Exploratory graph analysis: A new approach for estimating the number of dimensions in psychological research. PLoS ONE 2017; 12(6): e0174035.
  33. McDonald RP. Test theory: A unified treatment. London: Psychology press; 2013.
  34. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham R. Multivariate data analysis. Uppersaddle River.2006.
  35. Reise SP. The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. MultivariateBehav Res 2012; 47(5): 667-96.
  36. Watkins MW. The reliability of multidimensional neuropsychological measures: From alpha to omega. Clin Neuropsychol 2017; 31(6-7): 1113-26.
  37. Martins AP, Vega-Hernández MC, Soares FR, Afonso RM. Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Scale: Factorial structure, reliability, and validity in times of Portugal's COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. arXiv preprint arXiv 2024: 03108.
  38. Do Bú EA, de Alexandre ME, Rezende AT, Bezerra VA. Perceived vulnerability to disease: Adaptation and validation of the PVD-br. Curr Psychol 2023; 42(14): 11745-58.
  39. Chiesi F, Marunic G, Tagliaferro C, Lau C. The psychometric properties and gender invariance of the Italian version of the Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Questionnaire (I-PVDQ) during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Psychol 2022; 10(1): 321.

40.Ünal E, Özlem A, Gökler ME. Evaluation of the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the perceived vulnerability to disease scale. Osmangazi Tıp Dergisi 2023; 45(2): 188-97.

  1. Karakulak A, Stogianni M, Alonso‐Arbiol I, Shukla S, Bender M, Yeung VW, et al. The perceived vulnerability to disease scale: Cross‐cultural measurement invariance and associations with fear of COVID‐19 across 16 countries. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 2023; 17(11): e1287.
Journal of Fundamentals of Mental Health
Volume 27, Issue 2
March and April 2025
Pages 119-130

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics