Domains and Psychometric Properties of Scales Measuring Disaster Preparedness among General Population: A Systematic Literature Review


Osman M., Altlntaş K. H.

Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, vol.38, no.5, pp.636-644, 2023 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Review
  • Volume: 38 Issue: 5
  • Publication Date: 2023
  • Doi Number: 10.1017/s1049023x23006386
  • Journal Name: Prehospital and Disaster Medicine
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, MEDLINE
  • Page Numbers: pp.636-644
  • Keywords: disaster preparedness, domains, general population, psychometric properties, scales
  • Hacettepe University Affiliated: Yes

Abstract

Introduction: There is no universal tool for measuring disaster preparedness in the general population. This study aimed to provide a summary of the domains and psychometric properties of the available scales that assess preparedness for disasters, or one of its main types, among individuals or households. Methods: This study is a systematic review of the literature on disaster preparedness tools. Studies published up to December 2022 were identified through a systematic search of four databases: Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) were used to review and evaluate the psychometric properties. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used to report this article. Results: Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. Among them, five scales measured general disaster preparedness, five measured earthquake preparedness, one measured flood preparedness, and one measured bushfire preparedness. The scales had a number of dimensions ranging from one to six. The most common item topics in the included scales were as follows: having an evacuation plan (n = 7), information source (n = 7), fire extinguisher (n = 6), and emergency kit (n = 5). The scales were rated sufficient for content validity (n = 10), structural validity (n = 5), internal consistency (n = 5), and test-re-test reliability (n = 6). One scale was checked for criterion validity and was rated as insufficient according to the COSMIN guidelines. Conclusion: The findings suggest the need to improve the psychometric properties of the scales, expand their contents, and develop scales relevant to target populations. This study provides useful information for researchers to develop comprehensive assessment tools and valuable sources of items for future scales.