Objective: This study outlines the construction and initial psychometric properties of the Coronavirus Impact Scale in multiple large and diverse samples of families with children and adolescents. The scale was established to capture the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Differences in impact between samples and internal structure within samples were assessed.Method: Five hundred, seventy-two caregivers of children and adolescents or expecting mothers in diverse clinical and research settings completed the Coronavirus Impact Scale. Samples differed in developmental stage, background, inpatient/outpatient status, and primary research or clinical setting. Model free methods were used to measure the scale’s internal structure and determine a scoring method. Differences between samples in specific item responses were measured by multivariate ordinal regression.Results: The Coronavirus Impact Scale demonstrated good internal consistency in a variety of clinical and research populations. Single, immigrant, predominantly Latinx mothers of young children reported the greatest impact across groups, with elevated impact on food access and finances. Individuals receiving outpatient or inpatient care reported greater impacts on health care access. Impact was positively associated with measures of caregiver anxiety and both caregiver- and child-reported stress at a moderate effect size.Conclusion: The Coronavirus Impact Scale is a publicly available scale with adequate psychometric properties for use in measuring the impact of the coronavirus pandemic in diverse populations.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to review the federal decisions to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response in the United States and consider the different approaches employed by the California state government.Design/methodology/approachThis paper focuses on COVID-19-related issues, responses and implications in federal countries, and largely draws comparisons between the Trump Administration and California state.FindingsThe slow response of the federal government could have been avoided, had there been a current and tested national plan. The defunding of the Office of Pandemics and Emerging Threats, and the lack of coordination between the Trump Administration and the states have contributed to its ranking as the country with the highest COVID-19 infection and fatality rates worldwide. California state oversaw an effective initial pandemic response, which was ultimately undermined by a lack of national support and the refusal of some citizens to comply with the restrictions.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper draws upon open-source information published on government websites and news media.Originality/valueAs the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is currently ongoing, information about the federal governance and state response is still evolving. The authors examine California as a state exemplar, since it is the largest such jurisdiction by populace and the first state to issue statewide mandatory lockdown measures. This comparison offers insights as to the decisive initiatives that could have occurred at the federal level. The “lessons learned” highlight the critical role of crisis leadership in societal and public health preparedness for future pandemic events.