Measurement Invariance of the Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale: Comparison between Taiwanese and Mainland Chinese-Speaking Populations

Abstract

The impacts of novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) on human life continue to be serious. To control the spread of COVID-19, the production of effective vaccines is likely to be one of the best solutions. However, vaccination hesitancy may decrease individuals’ willingness to get vaccinated. The Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale (DrVac-COVID19S) was recently developed to help healthcare professionals and researchers better understand vaccination acceptance. The present study examined whether DrVac-COVID19S is measurement invariant across different subgroups (Taiwanese vs. mainland Chinese university students; males vs. females; and health-related program majors vs. non-health-related program majors). Taiwanese (n = 761; mean age = 25.51 years; standard deviation (SD) = 6.42; 63.5% females) and mainland Chinese university students (n = 3145; mean age = 20.72 years; SD = 2.06; 50.2% females) were recruited using an online survey between 5 January and 21 February 2021. Factor structure and measurement invariance of the two DrVac-COVID19S scales (nine-item and 12-item) were tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The findings indicated that the DrVac-COVID19S had a four-factor structure and was measurement invariant across the subgroups. The DrVac-COVID19S’s four-factor structure was supported by the CFA results is a practical and valid instrument to quickly capture university students’ willingness to get COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, the DrVac-COVID19S can be used to compare university students’ underlying reasons to get COVID-19 vaccination among different subgroups.

Adapting the Motors of Influenza Vaccination Acceptance Scale into the Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale: Psychometric evaluation among mainland Chinese university students

“…Although many studies have reported the high willingness of COVID-19 vaccinating uptake [e.g., 21, 36-39], low acceptance can still be observed [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] . Therefore, with the use of MoVac-COVID19S (or named as Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale [DrVac-COVID19S] in other research [44] ), healthcare providers and researchers can obtain in-depth information regarding the underlying mechanism of individuals who are unwilling to get vaccinated. Subsequently, appropriate programs may be designed according to the information to tackle the issue of low acceptability of COVID-19 vaccination uptake.…”

Differences in the Protection Motivation Theory Constructs between People with Various Latent Classes of Motivation for Vaccination and Preventive Behaviors against COVID-19 in Taiwan

“…A previous study using this questionnaire found that individuals who adopted protective behaviors against COVID-19 had higher levels of threat appraisal than who did not ( p < 0.001) [ 52 ] and supported its discriminant validity. We measured the constructs of coping appraisal (self-efficacy of receiving COVID-19 vaccination, response efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination, response cost of COVID-19 vaccination, and knowledge about COVID-19 vaccination) by the items of the Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale (DrVac-COVID19S) [ 53 ]. A previous study found that the DrVac-COVID19S had acceptable validity and could quickly capture the individuals’ intrinsic intention receive COVID-19 vaccination [ 53 ].…”

Comparisons of Motivation to Receive COVID-19 Vaccination and Related Factors between Frontline Physicians and Nurses and the Public in Taiwan: Applying the Extended Protection Motivation Theory

“…The items for measuring selfefficacy, response efficacy, response cost, and knowledge were adopted from the Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale (DrVac-COVID19S). The psychometrics of the DrVac-COVID19S has been examined in the previous study on Taiwanese and Mainland Chinese-speaking populations [39]. A higher score on each item indicated a higher level of threat appraisal, self-efficacy, response efficacy, response cost, and knowledge.…”