The Impact of Event Scale (ES; M. J. Horowitz, N. Wilner, & W. Alvarez, 1979) is a worldwide-used self-report measure to assess the frequency of intrusive and avoidant phenomena after a variety of traumatic experiences. The purpose of this article is to assess the psychometric value of the Dutch version of the IES (D. Brom & R. J. Kleber, 1985) in several samples of individuals who had experienced various traumatic stressors. The reliability and structure of the IES were evaluated in 3 different samples (total N = 1.588). The reliability of the Dutch version of the IES was adequate across the various stressors. The construct validity was assessed by using confirmatory factor analyses. Outcomes revealed a robust structure over the various samples, generally supporting the composition of the original IES.

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Highlights The COVID-19 pandemic is a major global progressive disaster. The effects on mental health and emotional support among the population are unclear. For this purpose, a prospective population-based study was conducted. High anxiety and depression symptoms levels and lack of support did not increase. Risk factors for symptoms and support before and during pandemic partly changed.

In this paper, we advance a new approach to the intergenerational transmission of Holocaust experiences, by focusing on attachment theory. The approach is used as a framework for interpretation of the results of three studies on Holocaust survivors and their offspring, from different countries (The Netherlands, Canada, and Israel), and based on different conceptual approaches and methods of data collection (quantitative as well as qualitative).

Objectives Examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and loneliness in the general population. More specifically, the study focused on prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms, the extent to which individuals with existing symptoms recovered or not, the prevalence of subtypes of loneliness, and the extent to which loneliness before and during this pandemic was associated with anxiety and depression symptoms. Methods Data was extracted from the longitudinal LISS panel, based on a probability sample of the Dutch population, with assessments on loneliness in October 2019 (T1) and June 2020 (T4), and anxiety and depression symptoms in November 2019 (T2), March 2020 (T3) and June 2020 (T4; Ntotal = 4,084). Loneliness was examined with the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale and anxiety and depression symptoms with the Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5). Results Repeated measures multivariate logistic regression analyses (RMMLRA) showed a statistical significant lower prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms after the outbreak (T4 = 15.3%) than before (T2 = 16.8%) and during the COVID-19 outbreak (T3 = 17.2%). According to the Reliable Change Index, the distribution of recovery categories (remission, improvement, unchanged and worsening symptoms) after the outbreak did not differ significantly from the distribution of these categories before the outbreak. RMMLRA revealed that the prevalence of emotional loneliness increased significantly after the outbreak (T1 = 18.4%, T4 = 24.8%). Among individuals who were not lonely before and after the outbreak the prevalence of symptoms decreased significantly (T2 = 7.0%, T4 = 4.4%) and, likewise, among those who were not lonely anymore after the outbreak (T2 = 21.5%, T4 = 14.5%). However, the prevalence of symptoms increased significantly among those who became lonely during the pandemic (T2 = 17.9%, T4 = 26.3%). Conclusions Findings suggest that this pandemic did not negatively affect the prevalence of anxiety and depression symptoms nor the normal recovery of symptoms among the general population during the first four months, but that emotional loneliness increased.