Next Article in Journal
Influence of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine Booster among Cancer Patients on Active Treatment Previously Immunized with Inactivated versus mRNA Vaccines: A Prospective Cohort Study
Next Article in Special Issue
The Relationship between Substance Use Stigma and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy
Previous Article in Journal
The Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Vaccination Hesitancy: A Viewpoint
Previous Article in Special Issue
Anxiety, Optimism, and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Students in a University in Southern Thailand during the 2021 Academic Year
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Vaccines
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/vaccines11071192
vaccines-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Parent Version of the Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale for Assessing Parents’ Motivation to Have Their Children Vaccinated

by
Chung-Ying Lin
1,2,3,4,
Ray C. Hsiao
5,6,
Yu-Min Chen
7,* and
Cheng-Fang Yen
7,8,9,*
1
Institute of Allied Health Sciences, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan
2
Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan
3
Department of Public Health, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan
4
Biostatistics Consulting Center, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan
5
Department of Psychiatry, Seattle Children’s, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
6
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA
7
Department of Psychiatry, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung 80756, Taiwan
8
Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan
9
College of Professional Studies, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Pingtung 91201, Taiwan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Vaccines 2023, 11(7), 1192; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071192
Submission received: 23 May 2023 / Revised: 16 June 2023 / Accepted: 29 June 2023 / Published: 3 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Vaccine Hesitancy)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Parents’ motivation to vaccinate their children against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) plays a crucial role in the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among children. The Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale (MoVac-COVID19S) is a valuable tool for assessing individuals’ vaccination-related attitudes and the factors influencing their decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19. This study adapted the MoVac-COVID19S to create a parent version (P-MoVac-COVID19S) and examined the psychometric soundness of two P-MoVac-COVID19S versions (a 9-item version (P-MoVac-COVID19S-9) and a 12-item version (P-MoVac-COVID19S-12)) for assessing parents’ motivation to vaccinate their children. A total of 550 parents completed the P-MoVac-COVID19S and a questionnaire assessing the factors that impact parents’ intention to allow their children to receive the COVID-19 vaccine using a vaccine acceptance scale. We enquired about the level of parental worry regarding the adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines on children’s health and the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received by parents. The factor structures of the P-MoVac-COVID19S-9 and P-MoVac-COVID19S-12 were examined using confirmatory factor analysis. The internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and concurrent validity of the P-MoVac-COVID19S were also examined. The results revealed that the P-MoVac-COVID19S-12 has a four-factor structure, which aligns well with the theoretical framework of the cognitive model of empowerment; the P-MoVac-COVID19S-9 has a one-factor structure. Both the P-MoVac-COVID19S-9 and P-MoVac-COVID19S-12 had good internal consistency and test–retest reliability and acceptable concurrent validity. The results of this study demonstrated that the P-MoVac-COVID19S is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing parent’s motivation to vaccinate their children against COVID-19.

1. Introduction

The Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) no longer constitutes a public health emergency of international concern on 3 May 2023 because of the decreasing numbers of COVID-19 deaths, the decline in COVID-19-related hospitalizations, and high levels of population immunity [1]. However, in April 2023, over 10,000 COVID-19 cases were reported in children per week in the United States [2]. Vaccination against COVID-19 is one strategy to prevent COVID-19 infection in children [3]. COVID-19 vaccines are now available for immunizing children over 6 months of age [3]. Vaccination against COVID-19 can reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization [4,5]. Studies have revealed that most parents are willing to vaccinate their children to reduce their risk of contracting COVID-19; however, many parents remain hesitant about vaccine uptake among children [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. A systematic review and meta-analysis on 44 studies published between 2020 and 2021 found that 60.1% of parents intended to have their child vaccinated against COVID-19, 22.9% of parents had no intention to have their child vaccinated, and 25.8% of parents were unsure [15]. The predictors of parents’ intention to have their child vaccinated against COVID-19 included being fathers, being parents of older age, having higher income, having a higher level of perceived COVID-19 threat, and having positive attitudes towards vaccines and vaccination [15]. Another review study revealed that the leading reason for parents’ vaccinating their child against COVID-19 was to protect children and family members, while the most important reason for not having their child vaccinated was the fear of side effects and the safety of vaccines for children [16]. A review study demonstrated that the willingness of parents to vaccinate their children was influenced by public attitudes; a more positive public attitude towards vaccination correlated with higher vaccination rates [17]. Assessing parents’ attitudes and the factors affecting their choice to vaccinate their children and developing intervention programs to increase children’s rate of vaccination against COVID-19 are essential.
A valid instrument is essential to assess individuals’ attitudes and the factors affecting the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19. There have been several instruments developed for measuring individuals’ attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines such as the Arizona CoVHORT Vaccine Questionnaire [18]; the Adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale [19]; the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale [20]; the COVID-19 Vaccine Attitudes and Beliefs Scale [21]; the COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns Scale [22]; the Multidimensional COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale [23]; the COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Questionnaire [24]; the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale on Knowledge, Attitude, Trust and Vaccination Environment [25]; the COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale in Qatar [26]; and the 5C Scale [27]. The Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale (MoVac-COVID19S) is a valuable tool for assessing individuals’ attitudes and factors affecting their decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19 [28,29,30]. The MoVac-COVID19S has several advantages in measuring individuals’ attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines. First, the MoVac-COVID19S was adapted from the Motors of Influenza Vaccination Acceptance Scale, which was developed for assessing acceptance of the influenza vaccine [31]. The MoVac-COVID19S, which is based on the cognitive model of empowerment (CME) [32], incorporates four core cognitive components that determine individuals’ motivation to be vaccinated against COVID-19, namely, values (i.e., how much an individual cares about the purpose of vaccination), impacts (i.e., how much an individual believes in the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination), knowledge (i.e., an individual’s level of knowledge regarding vaccination against COVID-19), and autonomy (i.e., an individual’s confidence and control over their decision to receive the COVID-19 vaccine). Compared with most other instruments, the MoVac-COVID19S assesses a broader scope of understanding the attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines. Second, most other instruments have been validated among people living in a single country or region. Studies have verified that the MoVac-COVID19S has acceptable psychometric soundness for assessing individuals’ motivation to be vaccinated in different populations, including in Taiwan, mainland China, India, Ghana, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia [33,34]. Third, two versions of the MoVac-COVID19S have been proposed: a 9-item MoVac-COVID19S with all items worded positively and a 12-item MoVac-COVID19S with 9 items worded positively and 3 items worded negatively [28]. The two versions of the MoVac-COVID19S offer a more flexible way of assessing individuals’ attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines depending on the needs of the surveys. The summary of the instruments developed for assessing individuals’ attitudes toward being vaccinated against COVID-19 is shown in Table 1.
Whether the MoVac-COVID19S can be used to effectively assess parents’ motivation to have their child vaccinated against COVID-19 warrants examination. If the P-MoVac-COVID19S can be employed to effectively assess parents’ motivation to have their child vaccinated, the MoVac-COVID19S and P-MoVac-COVID19S can be simultaneously used to compare parents’ motivation to vaccinate themselves and their children. The present study aimed to create the parent version of the MoVac-COVID19S (P-MoVac-COVID19S), designing a 9-item version and a 12-item version, by modifying the MoVac-COVID19S and examining its psychometric propensities, including factor structures, test–retest reliability, and internal consistency. We designed the 12-item P-MoVac-COVID19S (the P-MoVac-COVID19S-12) to have a four-factor structure (values, impacts, knowledge, and autonomy) and the 9-item P-MoVac-COVID19S (the P-MoVac-COVID19S-9) to have a one-factor structure, corresponding well with the CME theory. We hypothesized that the P-MoVac-COVID19S-9 and P-MoVac-COVID19S-12 had acceptable internal consistency and test–retest reliability. According to protection motivation theory [35,36,37,38,39], we also studied whether the P-MoVac-COVID19S-9 and P-MoVac-COVID19S-12 had acceptable concurrent validity by analyzing the association between parent’s motivation to vaccinate their children and the level of parental worry regarding the adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccination on children’s health and the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received by parents.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedure

This study enrolled parents who were aged 20 years or older and had a child aged between 6 and 18 years old. Participants were recruited using an online advertisement posted on social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, LINE (a direct messaging app commonly used in Taiwan), and the PPT bulletin board system from August 2022 to April 2023. Interested parents were instructed to contact the research assistants, who ensured the eligibility of potential participants, explained the study aims and procedures, and scheduled a time for eligible participants to individually complete the study questionnaires in a quiet study room. In total, 562 parents expressed interest in participating in research; of them, 12 parents were excluded because of their children’s age (younger than 6 or older than 18 years). A total of 550 parents participated in the study. The potential participants were also assessed by the research assistants to determine whether they had signs of impaired intellect or substance use that might interfere with their understanding of the study’s purpose or prevent them from completing the questionnaire. No participants were excluded. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the assessment. Participants completed the study questionnaire in an on-site study room. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital (KMUHIRB- KMUHIRB-E(I)-20220107).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. P-MoVac-COVID19S

The research team adapted the MoVac-COVID19S into P-MoVac-COVID19S by replacing the words “me” and “my” with “my child” and “my child’s”, respectively. Item 7, “I feel pressured about receiving COVID-19 vaccine”, was transformed into “I feel pressured about letting my child receive COVID-19 vaccine”. Item 11, “I only receive COVID-19 vaccine if it is required”, was transformed into “I only let my child receive COVID-19 vaccine if it is required”. The P-MoVac-COVID19S-12 comprises four domains, each with four items. The domains are composed of values (sample item: Vaccinating my child against COVID-19 is important), impacts (sample item: Vaccination greatly reduces my child’s risk of COVID-19 infection), knowledge (sample item: I understand how the vaccine helps my child’s body fight the COVID-19 virus), and autonomy (sample item: I can choose whether to allow my child to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or not). All items are rated based on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree), and three items (i.e., items 7, 10, and 11) are reverse-coded to ensure that higher summed scores on the P-MoVac-COVID19S indicate higher levels of parental acceptance to vaccinate children against COVID-19. In addition to the P-MoVac-COVID19S-12, a P-MoVac-COVID19S-9 was developed. Both the 12-item and 9-item versions of the MoVac-COVID19S have been revealed to be valid and reliable [28,33]. However, the 9-item version had a better data–model fit than the 12-item version. Moreover, the 9-item MoVac-COVID19S had a better fit with a one-factor structure (compared with the four-factor structure of the cognitive model of empowerment), whereas the 12-item MoVac-COVID19S had a better fit with a four-factor structure (compared with a one-factor structure).

2.2.2. Vaccination Intention and Level of Worry

Three items were used to evaluate information related to COVID-19 vaccination: (a) parents’ intention to allow their children to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (rated on a vaccination attitude scale from 1 to 10); (b) the level of parental worry regarding the adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccination on children’s health (rated based on a 5-point Likert scale from not at all worried to extremely worried); and (c) the number of COVID-19 vaccine doses received by parents (parents were asked to fill in a number).

2.2.3. Demographic Characteristics

Studies have found that parents’ motivation to vaccinate their child varied across different sex and ages of parents and children [13,40,41]; therefore, data on the sex and ages of the parents and their children were collected. Moreover, parental education level was a key factor influencing pediatric COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy [40]; therefore, the parents were asked to state how many years of education they had received.

2.3. Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the characteristics of the study sample and the properties of the P-MoVac-COVID19S items. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were employed to evaluate the test–retest reliability (with a time interval of one week) of each item on the P-MoVac-COVID19S and of the two summed scores (i.e., P-MoVac-COVID19S-12 and P-MoVac-COVID19S-9). When the correlation coefficient is larger than 0.4, the test–retest reliability is considered to be satisfactory; when the coefficient is between 0.3 and 0.5, the reliability is acceptable [42]. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with diagonally weighted least squares was applied to analyze the two versions of P-MoVac-COVID19S with two factor structures (i.e., each version was tested using a four-factor structure based on the cognitive model of empowerment and using a one-factor structure). The diagonally weighted least squares estimator was used because it can handle an ordinal scale, such as the Likert-type scales used in the P-MoVac-COVID19S [43]. Fit statistics were employed to evaluate the data–model fit, namely, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR). Fit statistics were indicated when the CFI and TLI values were >0.9 and the RMSEA and SRMR values were <0.08 [43]. Moreover, the factor structures of the P-MoVac-COVID19S-12 and P-MoVac-COVID19S-9 were separately compared using χ2 tests. The internal consistency and concurrent validity of both the P-MoVac-COVID19S-12 and P-MoVac-COVID19S-9 were also examined. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach’s α, with a value of >0.7 indicating good internal consistency [44]. Concurrent validity was evaluated by examining the association of three external criteria (i.e., intention of parents to allow their children to be vaccinated; level of worry about adverse effects of vaccination on children; number of vaccine doses received by parents) with P-MoVac-COVID19S-12 and P-MoVac-COVID19S-9 scores. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 20.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, US), except for the CFA, which used the lavaan R package [45].

3. Results

The parent sample had an average age of 44.29 (SD = 5.24) years, and the child sample had an average age of 11.80 (SD = 3.57) years, as presented in Table 2. Over three quarters of the parent sample were women (n = 427; 77.6%); the sex distribution in the child sample was relatively balanced (n = 301; 54.7% male). The parents were relatively well educated, with an average of 16.25 years of education (SD = 2.47). Most of the parents had received three or more doses of the COVID-19 vaccine (n = 513; 93.3%). The parents tended to be willing to allow their children to be vaccinated against COVID-19 (mean of intention = 7.87 on a vaccination attitude scale of 1–10), and almost half the parents had a moderate or high level of worry regarding the adverse effects of vaccination (n = 273; 49.6%).
The properties of the P-MoVac-COVID19S items are provided in Table 3. In brief, the mean values of the twelve items were relatively high (3.74 to 5.86 on a 7-point Likert-type scale). Moreover, all items were distributed normally (skewness = −1.694 to 0.022; kurtosis = −1.133 to 4.080) and had relatively good test–retest reliability (r = 0.39 to 0.65; all p < 0.001).
Regarding the factor structure of the P-MoVac-COVID19S (Table 4), the P-MoVac-COVID19S-12 had better fit with a four-factor structure (CFI = 0.945, TLI = 0.924, RMSEA = 0.084, and SRMR = 0.088) than with a one-factor structure (CFI = 0.933, TLI = 0.918, RMSEA = 0.088, and SRMR = 0.095), with a significant χ2 difference between the two structures (Δχ2 = 47.31, Δdf = 6; p < 0.001). The P-MoVac-COVID19S-9 also had better fit with a four-factor structure (CFI = 0.997, TLI = 0.995, RMSEA = 0.026, and SRMR = 0.050) than with a one-factor structure (CFI = 0.995, TLI = 0.993, RMSEA = 0.030, and SRMR = 0.059); however, the χ2 difference between the two factor structures was nonsignificant (Δχ2 = 10.33, Δdf = 5; p = 0.07). According to the principle of parsimony, a one-factor structure is preferred over a four-factor structure for the P-MoVac-COVID19S-9.
This study examined the concurrent validity of both the P-MoVac-COVID19S-12 and P-MoVac-COVID19S-9 by using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient with three external criteria (Table 5). The results indicated significant correlations between the questionnaire scores and the number of vaccine doses received by parents (r = 0.209 (12-item version); r = 0.164 (9-item version)), the intention of parents to allow their children to be vaccinated (r = 0.685 (12-item version); r = 0.610 (9-item version)), and the level of worry about the adverse effects of vaccination on children (r = –0.361 (12-item version); r = –0.243 (9-item version); all p < 0.05). The two versions of the P-MoVac-COVID19S had a high correlation (r = 0.909). Additionally, both versions of P-MoVac-COVID19S had good internal consistency (α = 0.860 (12-item version); α = 0.897 (9-item version)) and test–retest reliability (r = 0.780 (12-item version); r = 0.652 (9-item version)).

4. Discussion

The present study adapted the MoVac-COVID19S to create a parent version of the scale (i.e., the P-MoVac-COVID19S) for assessing parents’ motivation to vaccinate their children against COVID-19. The factor structure of the 12-item P-MoVac-COVID19S aligned well with the theoretical framework of the cognitive model of empowerment [32]. Although we suggested that the one-factor structure was preferred over the four-factor structure for the 9-item P-MoVac-COVID19S based on the principle of parsimony, the χ2 difference between the P-MoVac-COVID19S-12 and P-MoVac-COVID19S-9 was nonsignificant. Therefore, this study supported the psychometric propensities of the P-MoVac-COVID19S based on both theoretical and empirical evidence. Moreover, validating the efficacy of the P-MoVac-COVID19S is crucial because studies have revealed that parents’ vaccine hesitancy affects children’s COVID-19 vaccine uptake [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14].
Adopting the aforementioned theoretical framework [32] contributed to the psychometric soundness of the P-MoVac-COVID19S with respect to its factor structure, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and concurrent validity. Good internal consistency indicates that the P-MoVac-COVID19S items measure the same concept of vaccine uptake motivations for parents in a consistent manner. Satisfactory test–retest reliability indicates that the P-MoVac-COVID19S assesses the concept of vaccine uptake motivation consistently over time. In addition, the P-MoVac-COVID19S had acceptable concurrent validity, as indicated by its significant associations with the number of vaccine doses received by parents and the level of worry regarding the adverse effects of vaccination in children. Parents who received a higher number of vaccine doses were more accepting of vaccination against COVID-19, which predicted a higher level of parental motivation for vaccinating children. By contrast, higher levels of worry about the adverse effects of vaccination in children may increase parents’ vaccine hesitancy and reduce parents’ motivation to have their child vaccinated. These associations support the concurrent validity of the P-MoVac-COVID19S and align with protection motivation theory [35,36,37,38,39]. Therefore, this study verified the utility of the P-MoVac-COVIDS for assessing parents’ motivation to have their child vaccinated against COVID-19.
There have been several instruments used for measuring parental attitudes about child COVID-19 vaccines. For example, the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) survey [46] is a valid tool that has been successfully used to delineate the parental vaccine hesitancy before the COVID-19 pandemic. The 15-item [47] and 4-item PACV surveys [48] have been validated to be used in measuring parental attitudes and beliefs about childhood vaccines for COVID-19. The 15-item PACV survey contains three factors, including attitude, safety and efficacy, and analyzes behavior based on concepts that were developed based on the Health Belief Model [49]. The WHO’s Vaccine Hesitancy Scale has been also used to assess parental attitudes about childhood vaccines against COVID-19 [50,51]; however, its psychometric propensities in measuring parental attitudes about childhood vaccines against COVID-19 have not been examined. The P-MoVac-COVID19S has cognitive constructs similar to the original MoVac-COVID19S; therefore, parents’ motivations to vaccinate themselves and their children can be compared.
Several implications can be noted based on the findings of this study. Although many studies have reported a strong intention of parents to have their child vaccinated against COVID-19, many parents still have a low acceptance of vaccination [8,10,12]. Given that the P-MoVac-COVID19S contains the components of values, impacts, knowledge, and autonomy regarding children’s vaccination against COVID-19, healthcare providers and researchers can employ the P-MoVac-COVID19S to comprehensively analyze the multi-dimensional attitudes toward the vaccination of children and the underlying factors affecting parents’ unwillingness to vaccinate their children. It is also needed to investigate individual and environmental factors that could influence parents’ motivation to vaccinate their children, especially the attitudes of healthcare providers and trust in the healthcare system. Intervention programs must be developed based on the results regarding parental attitudes to address parents’ low acceptance of their child’s vaccination. The findings of the four-factor structure of the P-MoVac-COVID19S-12 highlight the value of empowering parental cognition regarding child COVID-19 vaccinations, which can equip medical professionals with a deeper understanding of parents’ hesitancy to vaccinate their children. Moreover, discrepancies in parents’ motivations to vaccinate themselves and their children and related factors should be emphasized. Given that the psychometric propensities of the MoVac-COVID19S have been validated in populations of various regions, further studies are needed to examine the psychometric propensity of the P-MoVac-COVID19S in populations of various regions and compare the levels of motivation and related factors.
This study has several limitations. First, we collected data from parents but not other informants; this could result in bias from shared-method variances [52]. Participants might also give socially desirable responses instead of choosing responses that are reflective of their true feelings. Collecting information regarding how many doses of COVID-19 vaccines parents and children have actually been administered might help reduce social desirability bias. Moreover, the participants were parents who were interested in the study purpose; therefore, the recruited participants were likely to be parents with a certain level of concern for the wellbeing of their children. Second, the participants were recruited using convenience sampling, which restricts the representativeness of the sample. Although recruiting participants using the online advertisement can deliver large numbers of participants quickly [53], Internet users may not be representative of the population. For example, a review study reported that recruiting participants using Facebook might have a bias in favor of young adults and people with higher education and incomes [54]. Future studies are thus required to enhance the representativeness of the sample and to corroborate the present findings. Third, several potential factors associated with parental willingness to allow their children to be vaccinated were not evaluated. For example, the attitudes of healthcare providers toward COVID-19 vaccines [55,56] and trust in the healthcare system [57] are potential factors associated with individuals’ attitudes toward vaccination. Therefore, future studies should incorporate additional relevant factors to reevaluate the psychometric soundness of the P-MoVac-COVID19S.

5. Conclusions

The present study demonstrated that the P-MoVac-COVID19S is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing parents’ motivation to have their child vaccinated against COVID-19. The P-MoVac-COVID19S incorporates four cognitive traits from the cognitive model of empowerment that help healthcare providers obtain information about parents’ willingness to vaccinate their children. Studies have documented the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines [58], and healthcare providers and relevant stakeholders hope to increase the vaccination rate. Therefore, healthcare providers could employ the P-MoVac-COVID19S to understand parents’ concerns about their children’s vaccination and to develop programs to improve parents’ willingness to vaccinate their children.

Author Contributions

C.-Y.L. analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. Y.-M.C. and C.-F.Y. formulated the goals of and conducted the study. R.C.H. revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by a research grant from Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital (grant KMUH111-M101).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The institutional review boards of Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital (approval number: KMUHIRB-E(I)-20220107) approved this study.

Informed Consent Statement

All participants provided written informed consent.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be available upon reasonable request to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Statement on the Fifteenth Meeting of the International Health Regulations. Emergency Committee Regarding the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic. 2023. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2023-statement-on-the-fifteenth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic (accessed on 15 May 2023).
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics. Children and COVID-19: State-Level Data Report. 2023. Available online: https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19-infections/children-and-covid-19-state-level-data-report/ (accessed on 15 May 2023).
  3. World Health Organization. Interim Statement on COVID-19 Vaccination for Children. 2022. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/11-08-2022-interim-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-for-children (accessed on 15 May 2023).
  4. Marks, K.J.; Whitaker, M.; Anglin, O.; Milucky, J.; Patel, K.; Pham, H.; Chai, S.J.; Kirley, P.D.; Armistead, I.; McLafferty, S.; et al. Hospitalizations of children and adolescents with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19—COVID-NET, 14 States, July 2021–January 2022. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2022, 71, 271–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Yigit, M.; Ince, Y.E.; Kalayci, F.; Santaflioglu, B.; Kurt, F.; Ozkaya-Parlakay, A.; Dibek Misirlioglu, E.; Senel, E. The impact of childhood and parental vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in children. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2022, 41, 841–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Alimoradi, Z.; Lin, C.Y.; Pakpour, A.H. Worldwide estimation of parental acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine for their children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccines 2023, 11, 533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mustafa, S.H.B.; Kabamba, M.; Onyango, R.O. Determinants of parents’ intention to vaccinate their children aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in North Kivu (Democratic Republic of Congo). Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2023, 19, 2179788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, F.; He, Y.; Shi, Y. Parents’ and guardians’ willingness to vaccinate their children for reducing the risk of contracting COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaccines 2022, 10, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Goulding, M.; Ryan, G.W.; Minkah, P.; Borg, A.; Gonzalez, M.; Medina, N.; Suprenant, P.; Rosal, M.C.; Lemon, S.C. Parental perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine for 5- to 11-year-old children: Focus group findings from Worcester Massachusetts. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2022, 18, 2120721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ma, Y.; Ren, J.; Zheng, Y.; Cai, D.; Li, S.; Li, Y. Chinese parents’ willingness to vaccinate their children for reducing the risk of contracting COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 1087295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Morozov, N.G.; Dror, A.A.; Daoud, A.; Eisenbach, N.; Kaykov, E.; Barhoum, M.; Sheleg, T.; Sela, E.; Edelstein, M. Reasons underlying the intention to vaccinate children aged 5–11 against COVID-19: A cross-sectional study of parents in Israel, November 2021. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2022, 18, 2112879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pierce, C.A.; Herold, K.C.; Herold, B.C.; Chou, J.; Randolph, A.; Kane, B.; McFarland, S.; Gurdasani, D.; Pagel, C.; Hotez, P.; et al. COVID-19 and children. Science 2022, 377, 1144–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tsai, C.S.; Hsiao, R.C.; Chen, Y.M.; Yen, C.F. Factors related to caregiver intentions to vaccinate their children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder against COVID-19 in Taiwan. Vaccines 2021, 9, 983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zheng, M.; Zhong, W.; Chen, X.; Wang, N.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Cheng, Y.; Li, W.; Yu, Q.; Zhao, X.; et al. Factors influencing parents’ willingness to vaccinate their preschool children against COVID-19: Results from the mixed-method study in China. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2022, 18, 2090776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Galanis, P.; Vraka, I.; Siskou, O.; Konstantakopoulou, O.; Katsiroumpa, A.; Kaitelidou, D. Willingness, refusal and influential factors of parents to vaccinate their children against the COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev. Med. 2022, 157, 106994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Pan, F.; Zhao, H.; Nicholas, S.; Maitland, E.; Liu, R.; Hou, Q. Parents’ decisions to vaccinate children against COVID-19: A scoping review. Vaccines 2021, 9, 1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hookham, L.; Lee, H.C.; Patel, D.A.; Coelho, M.; Giglio, N.; Le Doare, K.; Pannaraj, P.S. Vaccinating children against SARS-CoV-2: A literature review and survey of international experts to assess safety, efficacy and perceptions of vaccine use in children. Vaccines 2022, 11, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Habila, M.A.; Valencia, D.Y.; Khan, S.M.; Heslin, K.M.; Hoskinson, J.; Ernst, K.C.; Pogreba-Brown, K.; Jacobs, E.T.; Cordova-Marks, F.M.; Warholak, T. A Rasch analysis assessing the reliability and validity of the Arizona CoVHORT COVID-19 vaccine questionnaire. SSM Popul. Health 2022, 17, 101040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Akel, K.B.; Masters, N.B.; Shih, S.F.; Lu, Y.; Wagner, A.L. Modifcation of a vaccine hesitancy scale for use in adult vaccinations in the United States and China. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2021, 17, 2639–2646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Freeman, D.; Loe, B.S.; Chadwick, A.; Vaccari, C.; Waite, F.; Rosebrock, L.; Jenner, L.; Petit, A.; Lewandowsky, S.; Vanderslott, S.; et al. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: The Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (Oceans) II. Psychol. Med. 2022, 52, 3127–3141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Huang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Dai, Z.; Xiao, W.; Wang, H.; Si, M.; Wang, W.; Gu, X.; Ma, L.; Li, L.; et al. Psychometric validation of a Chinese version of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale: A cross-sectional study. BMC Infect. Dis. 2022, 22, 765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gregory, M.E.; MacEwan, S.R.; Powell, J.R.; Volney, J.; Kurth, J.D.; Kenah, E.; Panchal, A.R.; McAlearney, A.S. The COVID-19 vaccine concerns scale: Development and validation of a new measure. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2022, 18, 2050105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kotta, I.; Kalcza-Janosi, K.; Szabo, K.; Marschalko, E.E. Development and validation of the multidimensional COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2022, 18, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cvjetković, S.; Jeremić Stojković, V.; Piperac, P.; Djurdjević, O.; Bjegović-Mikanović, V. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: Questionnaire development and validation. Cent. Eur. J. Public Health 2022, 30, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Zhao, T.; Liu, H.; Han, B.; Liu, B.; Liu, J.; Du, J.; Huang, N.; Lu, Q.; Liu, Y.; Cui, F. Evaluation of the reliability and validity of a vaccine hesitancy scale on knowledge, attitude, trust and vaccination environment (KATE-S) in Chinese parents. Vaccine 2022, 40, 2933–2939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hammoud, H.; Albayat, S.S.; Mundodan, J.; Alateeg, S.; Adli, N.; Sabir, D.; Bendari, T.; Al-Romaihi, H.E.; Bougmiza, I. Development and validation of a multi-dimensional COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy questionnaire. Vaccine X 2023, 14, 100286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Abd ElHafeez, S.; Elbarazi, I.; Shaaban, R.; ElMakhzangy, R.; Ossama Aly, M.; Alnagar, A.; Yacoub, M.; El Saeh, H.M.; Eltaweel, N.; Alqutub, S.T.; et al. Arabic validation and cross-cultural adaptation of the 5C scale for assessment of COVID-19 vaccines psychological antecedents. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0254595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Chen, I.H.; Ahorsu, D.K.; Ko, N.Y.; Yen, C.F.; Lin, C.Y.; Griffiths, M.D.; Pakpour, A.H. Adapting the Motors of Influenza Vaccination Acceptance Scale into the Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale: Psychometric evaluation among mainland Chinese university students. Vaccine 2021, 39, 4510–4515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fan, C.W.; Chen, J.S.; Addo, F.M.; Adjaottor, E.S.; Amankwaah, G.B.; Yen, C.F.; Ahorsu, D.K.; Lin, C.Y. Examining the validity of the drivers of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance scale using Rasch analysis. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2022, 21, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yeh, Y.C.; Chen, I.H.; Ahorsu, D.K.; Ko, N.Y.; Chen, K.L.; Li, P.C.; Yen, C.F.; Lin, C.Y.; Griffiths, M.D.; Pakpour, A.H. Measurement invariance of the Drivers of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale: Comparison between Taiwanese and mainland Chinese-speaking populations. Vaccines 2021, 9, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vallée-Tourangeau, G.; Promberger, M.; Moon, K.; Wheelock, A.; Sirota, M.; Norton, C.; Sevdalis, N. Motors of influenza vaccination uptake and vaccination advocacy in healthcare workers: Development and validation of two short scales. Vaccine 2018, 36, 6540–6545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Thomas, K.W.; Velthouse, B.A. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1990, 15, 666–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chen, I.H.; Wu, P.L.; Yen, C.F.; Ullah, I.; Shoib, S.; Zahid, S.U.; Bashir, A.; Iqbal, N.; Addo, F.M.; Adjaottor, E.S.; et al. Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale (MoVac-COVID19S): Evidence of measurement invariance across five countries. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 2022, 15, 435–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pramukti, I.; Strong, C.; Chen, I.H.; Yen, C.F.; Rifai, A.; Ibrahim, K.; Pandin, M.G.R.; Subramaniam, H.; Griffiths, M.D.; Lin, C.Y.; et al. The Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale (MoVac-COVID19S): Measurement invariant evidence for its nine-item version in Taiwan, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2022, 15, 1617–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chen, Y.L.; Lin, Y.J.; Chang, Y.P.; Chou, W.J.; Yen, C.F. 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. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Huang, P.C.; Hung, C.H.; Kuo, Y.J.; Chen, Y.P.; Ahorsu, D.K.; Yen, C.F.; Lin, C.Y.; Griffiths, M.D.; Pakpour, A.H. Expanding protection motivation theory to explain willingness of COVID-19 vaccination uptake among Taiwanese university students. Vaccines 2021, 9, 1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lin, Y.J.; Yen, C.F.; Chang, Y.P.; Wang, P.W. 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. Vaccines 2021, 9, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rogers, R.W. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J. Psychol. 1975, 91, 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, P.W.; Ahorsu, D.K.; Lin, C.Y.; Chen, I.H.; Yen, C.F.; Kuo, Y.J.; Griffiths, M.D.; Pakpour, A.H. Motivation to have COVID-19 vaccination explained using an extended protection motivation theory among university students in China: The role of information sources. Vaccines 2021, 9, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Wang, Y.; Zhang, X. Key factors influencing paediatric COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A brief overview and Decision-making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory analysis. Public Health 2023, 218, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tsai, C.S.; Wang, L.J.; Hsiao, R.C.; Yen, C.F. Second wave of the study of Taiwanese caregivers of children with ADHD in the COVID-19 pandemic: Intentions to vaccinate their children for COVID-19, and related Factors. Vaccines 2022, 10, 753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Neuhaus, C.; Camathias, C.; Mumme, M.; Faude, O. The German version of the KOOS-Child questionnaire (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for children) shows a good to excellent internal consistency and a high test-retest reliability in children with knee problems. Knee 2023, 31, 1354–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nadhiroh, S.R.; Nurmala, I.; Pramukti, I.; Tivany, S.T.; Tyas, L.W.; Zari, A.P.; Poon, W.C.; Siaw, Y.L.; Kamolthip, R.; Chirawat, P.; et al. Weight stigma in Indonesian young adults: Validating the indonesian versions of the weight self-stigma questionnaire and perceived weight stigma scale. Asian J. Soc. Health Behav. 2022, 5, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Taber, K.S. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Rosseel, Y. lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Softw. 2012, 48, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Opel, D.J.; Taylor, J.A.; Mangione-Smith, R.; Solomon, C.; Zhao, C.; Catz, S.; Martin, D. Validity and reliability of a survey to identify vaccine-hesitant parents. Vaccine 2011, 29, 6598–6605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. ElSayed, D.A.; Bou Raad, E.; Bekhit, S.A.; Sallam, M.; Ibrahim, N.M.; Soliman, S.; Abdullah, R.; Farag, S.; Ghazy, R.M. Validation and cultural adaptation of the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines (PACV) Questionnaire in Arabic language widely spoken in a region with a high prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Trop. Med. Infect. Dis. 2022, 7, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Opel, D.J.; Furniss, A.; Zhou, C.; Rice, J.D.; Spielvogle, H.; Spina, C.; Perreira, C.; Giang, J.; Dundas, N.; Dempsey, A.; et al. Parent attitudes towards childhood vaccines after the onset of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States. Acad. Pediatr. 2022, 22, 1407–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rosenstock, I.M. Historical origins of the Health Belief Model. Health Educ. Behav. 1974, 2, 328–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Duran, S.; Duran, R.; Acunaş, B.; Şahin, E.M. Changes in parents’ attitudes towards childhood vaccines during the course of COVID-19 pandemic. Pediatr. Int. 2023, in press. [CrossRef]
  51. Temsah, M.H.; Alhuzaimi, A.N.; Aljamaan, F.; Bahkali, F.; Al-Eyadhy, A.; Alrabiaah, A.; Alhaboob, A.; Bashiri, F.A.; Alshaer, A.; Temsah, O.; et al. Parental attitudes and hesitancy about COVID-19 vs. routine childhood vaccinations: A national survey. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 752323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jordan, P.J.; Troth, A.C. Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations. Aust. J. Manag. 2020, 45, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bobkowski, P.; Smith, J. Social media divide: Characteristics of emerging adults who do not use social network websites. Media Cult. Soc. 2013, 35, 771–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Whitaker, C.; Stevelink, S.; Fear, N. The use of Facebook in recruiting participants for health research purposes: A systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017, 19, e290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Kotecha, I.S.; Vasavada, D.A.; Kumar, P.; Nerli, L.M.; Tiwari, D.S.; Parmar, D.V. Knowledge, attitude, and belief of health-care workers toward COVID-19 Vaccine at a tertiary care center in India. Asian J. Soc. Health Behav. 2022, 5, 63–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rad, M.K.; Fakhri, A.; Stein, L.; Araban, M. Health-care staff beliefs and coronavirus disease 2019 vaccinations: A cross-sectional study from Iran. Asian J. Soc. Health Behav. 2022, 5, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ahorsu, D.K.; Lin, C.Y.; Yahaghai, R.; Alimoradi, Z.; Broström, A.; Griffiths, M.D.; Pakpour, A.H. The mediational role of trust in the healthcare system in the association between generalized trust and willingness to get COVID-19 vaccination in Iran. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2022, 18, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Lin, C.Y.; Fan, C.W.; Ahorsu, D.K.; Lin, Y.C.; Weng, H.C.; Griffiths, M.D. Associations between vaccination and quality of life among Taiwan general population: A comparison between COVID-19 vaccines and flu vaccines. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2022, 18, 2079344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Common instruments for assessing individuals’ attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines.
Table 1. Common instruments for assessing individuals’ attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines.
InstrumentAuthorsNumber of ItemsContentTested Region
Arizona CoVHORT Vaccine QuestionnaireHabila et al., 2022 [18]10Perceptions and beliefs regarding COVID-19 vaccinesArizona, USA
Adult Vaccine Hesitancy ScaleAkel et al., 2021 [19]10Vaccine hesitancyChina and USA
Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy ScaleFreeman et al., 2022 [20]7Vaccine hesitancyUK
COVID-19 Vaccine Attitudes and Beliefs ScaleHuang et al., 2022 [21]15Safety, efficacy, and general attitudesChina
COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns ScaleGregory et al., 2022 [22]7Vaccine hesitancyUSA
Multidimensional COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy ScaleKotta et al., 2022 [23]15Skepticism, risk, and fear of vaccinesRomania
COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy QuestionnaireCvjetković et al., 2022 [24]8Confidence, complacency, and convenience of vaccinesSerbia
Vaccine Hesitancy Scale on Knowledge, Attitude, Trust and Vaccination EnvironmentZhao et al., 2022 [25]30Vaccine hesitancy in knowledge, attitude, trust, and environment domainsChina
COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale in QatarHammoud et al., 2023 [26]50Vaccine hesitancy, COVID-19 perceived risk, conspiracy beliefs, vaccine confidence, medical mistrust, and vaccine literacyQatar
5C ScaleAbd ElHafeez et al., 2021 [27]10Confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibilityMiddle-Eastern countries
Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance ScaleChen et al., 2021 [28]
Fan et al., 2022 [29]
Yeh et al., 2021 [30]		9-item and 12-item versions12-item version: values, impacts, knowledge, and autonomyTaiwan, mainland China, India, Ghana, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Malaysia
Table
Table 2. Participants’ characteristics (N = 550).
Table 2. Participants’ characteristics (N = 550).
M (SD)n (%)
Parent age (year)44.29 (5.24)
Child age (year)11.80 (3.57)
Parent sex
 Male 123 (22.4)
 Female 427 (77.6)
Child sex
 Male 301 (54.7)
 Female 249 (45.3)
Number of years parents received education16.25 (2.47)
Number of vaccine jabs in parents
 0 4 (0.7)
 1 6 (1.1)
 2 27 (4.9)
 3 287 (52.2)
 4 191 (34.7)
 5 34 (6.2)
 6 1 (0.2)
Intention to let children be vaccinated (1–10 VAS scale) 7.87 (2.04)
Worry about the adverse effects of child vaccination
 Not at all worried 23 (4.2)
 Slightly worried 254 (46.2)
 Moderately worried 144 (26.2)
 Very worried 78 (14.2)
 Extremely worried 51 (9.3)
Table
Table 3. Item properties of the P-MoVac-COVID19S.
Table 3. Item properties of the P-MoVac-COVID19S.
Mean (SD) n (%) Test–Retest
1234567
Item 15.25 (1.39)15 (2.7)15 (2.7)34 (6.2)50 (9.1)166 (30.2)182 (33.1)88 (16.0)0.67
Item 25.38 (1.25)8 (1.5)6 (1.1)29 (5.3)62 (11.3)164 (29.8)183 (33.3)98 (17.8)0.56
Item 35.83 (1.12)6 (1.1)3 (0.5)13 (2.4)27 (4.9)123 (22.4)214 (38.9)164 (29.8)0.39
Item 45.41 (1.36)9 (1.6)14 (2.5)29 (5.3)57 (10.4)146 (26.5)174 (31.6)121 (22.0)0.65
Item 55.53 (1.06)0 (0.0)6 (1.1)19 (3.5)49 (8.9)176 (32.0)201 (36.5)99 (18.0)0.50
Item 65.74 (1.02)3 (0.5)1 (0.2)10 (1.8)38 (6.9)145 (26.4)227 (41.3)126 (22.9)0.54
Item 73.89 (1.76)42 (7.6)77 (14.0)156 (28.4)92 (16.7)53 (9.6)70 (12.7)60 (10.9)0.43
Item 85.28 (1.08)2 (0.4)5 (0.9)19 (3.5)99 (18.0)172 (31.3)192 (34.9)61 (11.1)0.62
Item 95.86 (1.17)9 (1.6)5 (0.9)7 (1.3)33 (6.0)97 (17.6)228 (41.5)171 (31.1)0.47
Item 103.74 (1.63)42 (7.6)92 (16.7)128 (23.3)123 (22.4)70 (12.7)60 (10.9)35 (6.4)0.64
Item 114.28 (1.79)26 (4.7)82 (14.9)104 (18.9)81 (14.7)92 (16.7)88 (16.0)77 (14.0)0.42
Item 125.20 (1.21)7 (1.3)8 (1.5)20 (3.6)109 (19.8)166 (30.2)169 (30.7)71 (12.9)0.46
Note: Items 7, 10, and 11 are negatively worded items with reverse coding. There were 50 parents who completed the retest. Test–retest reliability was assessed using Spearman’s rho. P-MoVac-COVID19S: Parent version of Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale.
Table
Table 4. Factor structures of the 12-item and 9-item P-MoVac-COVID19Ss.
Table 4. Factor structures of the 12-item and 9-item P-MoVac-COVID19Ss.
12-Item MoVac-COVID19S9-Item MoVac-COVID19S
Four-FactorOne-FactorFour-FactorOne-Factor
Scale properties
 χ2 (df)235.83 (48)283.14 (54)29.89 (22)40.22 (27)
 p-value<0.001<0.0010.120.049
 CFI0.9450.9330.9970.995
 TLI0.9240.9180.9950.993
 RMSEA0.0840.0880.0260.030
 90% CI RMSEA0.074, 0.0950.078, 0.0980.000, 0.0470.002, 0.048
 SRMR0.0880.0950.0500.059
Item factor loadings
 Item 10.7250.6900.7490.734
 Item 20.7510.7420.8610.777
 Item 30.8280.8020.8360.808
 Item 40.7860.7480.8040.788
 Item 50.6850.6760.7400.674
 Item 60.8920.8610.8920.862
 Item 70.3880.229--
 Item 80.8000.7750.7940.770
 Item 90.5310.3881.0000.369
 Item 100.4930.474--
 Item 110.6040.366--
 Items 120.5820.5720.5550.550
Note: Items 7, 10, and 11 are negatively worded items with reverse coding. In four-factor structures, items 3, 6, and 8 are embedded in the values construct; items 1, 4, and 12 are embedded in the impacts construct; items 2, 5, and 10 are embedded in the knowledge construct; and items 7, 9, and 11 are embedded in the autonomy construct. P-MoVac-COVID19S: Parent version of Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale.
Table
Table 5. Concurrent validity (Spearman’s rho) of the 12-item and 9-item P-MoVac-COVID19Ss.
Table 5. Concurrent validity (Spearman’s rho) of the 12-item and 9-item P-MoVac-COVID19Ss.
12-Item P-MoVac-COVID19S9-Item P-MoVac-COVID19S
12-item MoVac-COVID19S-0.909
Number of vaccine jabs in parents0.2090.164
Intention to let children be vaccinated0.6850.610
Worry about the adverse effects child vaccination−0.361−0.243
Cronbach’s α = 0.860 (12-item P-MoVac-COVID19S) and 0.897 (9-item P-MoVac-COVID19S). For test–retest reliability, Spearman’s rho = 0.780 (12-item P-MoVac-COVID19S) and 0.652 (9-item P-MoVac-COVID19S). Note: all p-values < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lin, C.-Y.; Hsiao, R.C.; Chen, Y.-M.; Yen, C.-F. A Parent Version of the Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale for Assessing Parents’ Motivation to Have Their Children Vaccinated. Vaccines 2023, 11, 1192. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071192

AMA Style

Lin C-Y, Hsiao RC, Chen Y-M, Yen C-F. A Parent Version of the Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale for Assessing Parents’ Motivation to Have Their Children Vaccinated. Vaccines. 2023; 11(7):1192. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071192

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lin, Chung-Ying, Ray C. Hsiao, Yu-Min Chen, and Cheng-Fang Yen. 2023. "A Parent Version of the Motors of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance Scale for Assessing Parents’ Motivation to Have Their Children Vaccinated" Vaccines 11, no. 7: 1192. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071192

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop