Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

The Psychometric Properties of the Environmental

Worry Index

Rotimi Oguntayo, M. Gutiérrez-Vega, O. A. Esparza-Del Villar

Autonomous University of Ciudad Juarez, Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico

Abstract

Introduction:

Environmental-

related hazards are a global problem; consequently, an

Environmental Worry Index (EWI) was developed; however, the psychometric properties of

this scale in the Spanish population are unavailable.

Purpose

: The objective of this study was to adapt and examine the psychometric

properties of an Environmental Worry Inventory (EWI) in a Spanish-

speaking student

population.

Methodology

: This study adopted a cross-

sectional design. It used a snowball sampling

tec

hnique to collect data using the compact questionnaire comprise of EWI, Climate

Anxiety Scale (CAS), and Big Five Inventory (BFI-15) from 251 participants in 2023 among

students of Autonomous University of Ciudad Juarez (UACJ), Juarez, Mexico.

Results:

Results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO=0.891)

and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (p < 0.001) showed adequate data. Confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA; χ

2 (5) = 78,595, CFI = 0.94, and RMSEA=0.078) demonstrated adequate

goodness of fit. EWI was associated with CAS, and neuroticism dimension of BFI-15. It has

an acceptable overall Cronbach Alpha coefficient (α = 0.890); the two subscale factors’

reliability coefficients ranged from .80 to .89.

Conclusion

: The study concluded tha

t EWI is reliable, valid and recommended for use

among Mexicans especially the Spanish speaking students.

Keywords

Mental health. eco-anxiety, environmental worry, EWI, climate change

Address for correspondence:

Rotimi Oguntayo, Department of Psychology, Institute of Social Sciences and

Administration, Autonomous University of Ciudad Juarez, Juarez, Chihuahua,

Mexico

E-mail: al228170@alumnus.uacj.mx

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0

International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).

©Copyright Oguntayo, 2023

Publisher: Sciendo (De Gruyter)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.56508/mhgcj.v7i1.181

Submitted for publication: 06

November 2023

Revised: 17 December 2023

Accepted for publication:

03 January 2024

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

Introduction

Environmental hazards, such as pollution,

climate change, and resource depletion,

have become global challenges with

profound psychological and social

implications environmental hazards or climate

change pose an existential threat to the

human condition and its continued existence

(American Psychological Association [APA],

2017). However, these challenges manifest

differently across cultures and regions

(Ramrez-López et al., 2023; Thompson et al.,

2023; Centre for Research on the

Epidemiology of Disasters [CRED], 2018).

Spanish and Mexican university students

represent a unique demographic with distinct

cultural, environmental, and sociopolitical

contexts. This existential threat to the human

condition and its continued existence

become one of the focuses of mental health

professionals recently (American

Psychological Association [APA] 2017; Clayton

& Manning, 2018; Clayton & Karazsia, 2020;

Zafa, 2022). Environmental crises have been

identified as pervasive and imminent in

certain regions of America while Mexico is

inclusive or probably one of those mostly

affected (Global Forest Watch, 2022; Instituto

Nacional de Ecologa y Cambio Climático

[INECC], 2018; McCutchen et al. 2021;

Ramrez-López et al., 2023).

The Environmental Worry Index (EWI) was

initially developed, validated, and used in

sub-Saharan African population, where it has

begun to acquire recognition as a unique

measure of the worries associated with

environmental degradations from past to

present experience and anticipated future

effects on individuals (Oguntayo et al., 2023).

In contrast to similar scale studies within and

outside Latin American populations (Hogg et

al., 2021; Gómez et al., 2022; Materia, 2026;

Ramírez-López et al., 2023), the initial study of

the current study went further by

incorporating eco-anxiety and other

environmental-related factors into measuring

environmental worry (Oguntayo et al., 2023).

This makes EWI more encompassing it covers

eco-anxiety and other concerns related to

natural or man-made environmental

depletion (Hickman et al., 2020). It consists of

"climate change anxiety" (anxiety specifically

associated with human-caused climate

change, such as global warming, rising sea

levels, and more natural disasters and extreme

weather events) and anxiety about a number

of environmental disasters that may or may

not be directly associated with climate

change, such as the extinction of entire

ecosystems and plant and animal species

(Clayton et al., 2020; Pihkala, 2020). Given the

interconnectedness of environmental issues in

our global ecosystem and the evidence that

people express concern over other types of

environmental problems (Haaland, 2019; Helm

et al., 2018; Hickman, 2020; Kelly, 2017). It is

reasonable to assume that people are

concerned about other environmental issues.

Environmental worry encompasses a

spectrum of affective and behavioral

responses to environmental problems, such as

feelings of fear, unease, and apprehension

about the immediate and future effects of

environmental issues on individuals (Clayton et

al., 2017; Oguntayo et al., 2023). It is broader

than eco-anxiety (a type of emotional

response that lies under environmental

concern); not all-environmental concern is

inherently eco-anxiety, but all eco-anxiety is

embedded in environmental concern

(Clayton et al., 2017; Haaland 2019; Helm et

al., 2018; Thompson et al., 2023).

Environmental worry encompasses a broader

spectrum, including pollution, extreme

weather conditions (heat, excessive rainfall,

drought, etc.), extinction of species, food

scarcity, factors that aid an unconducive

physical environment, and cognitive and

behavioral responses that accompany it with

immediate and future anxiety (Clayton et al.,

2017; Oguntayo et al., 2023).

According to a study, the EWI reflects

individuals' evaluations of the immediate,

severe, and future effects of environmental

problems (Oguntayo et al., 2023). When a

person's perspective, attitudes, subjective

norms, and perceived behavioral control in a

given situation are perceived to be under

threat, it may trigger emotional reactions such

as anxiety, dread, and concerns (Si et al. 2019;

Thompson et al., 2023). Moreover, the existing

eco- or climate change anxiety measures

(Ogunbode et al., 2022; Helm et al., 2018;

Kelly, 2017) capture the negative emotions

that individuals experience when considering

climate change; however, they do not

account for concerns about other

environmental hazards such as EWI.

EWI concentrates on the environmental

damage anxiety as opposed to anxiety over

generic, societal, or global causes (Clayton et

al., 2020; Van der Linden 2014). More so, some

existing assessments of environmental worry

are typically available in English, German,

Polish, and French (Clayton et al., 2020;

Larionow et al., 2022; Mouguiama-Daouda et

al., 2022; Rethage et al., 2008; Stewart, 2021).

Considering these, the study chose to adapt

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

and ascertain the validity and reliability of this

scale, believing that its Spanish version will be

especially useful for researchers and clinicians

working with this population.

In certain months (June and July), the

prevalence of mental illness increases in

Northern Mexico and other Latin American

countries due to unfavorable weather such as

high temperatures, environmental

degradation and pollution (CRED, 2018;

INECC, 2018; McCutchen et al., 2016;

Ramírez-López et al., 2023). All of the

aforementioned factors demonstrate the

connection between environmental hazards

and emotional distress (worry) that serves has

mental health challenge; also, the gaps

identified in the previous studies demonstrate

and justify the necessity of this study. The focus

of this study is on the adaption and assessment

of the psychometrics of an Environmental

Worry Index among a multicultural university

student population in the Mexican border city

context of Juarez, which has far-reaching

consequences for international interest and

policy.

Juarez's unique socio-environmental

characteristics, as well as its location on the

US-Mexico border, provide interesting insights

into the interaction of environmental issues,

cultural diversity, and mental health.

Therefore, it is believed that this study has

ability to provide insight on how ecological

difficulties affect the mental health of a varied

student population, functioning as a

microcosm of bigger global issues by doing

research in this context. The findings have the

potential to pique international attention by

offering a nuanced understanding of the signs

and prevalence of environmental

deterioration in multicultural contexts,

informing more comprehensive mental health

policy worldwide. It has the potential to

contribute to the international discussion on

the mental health consequences of

environmental problems, as well as to assist

evidence-based policy creation for global

well-being. As a result, the authors believe that

this work makes an important addition to

literature, Spanish-speaking society, and

international policy by guiding the

assessment, prevention, and management of

environmental hazard psychosocial impacts

that provoke mental health. As a result, the

authors of this study made a deliberate

decision to fill identified gaps in the past

literature and add more values to mental

health research and practice in conducting

this study.

Purpose

The primary objective of this study was to

examine the psychometric properties of an

adapted Environmental Worry Inventory (EWI)

in a Spanish-speaking student population.

Methodology

Study design, Setting and Target Population

This study adopted a cross-sectional

design; the study's population consisted of

students from the UACJ, Juarez, Mexico. This

public university has more than 28,000 students

from diverse races, ethnicities, and cultures,

and it is located in a city bordering the US and

Mexico with extreme weather (UACJ, 2022).

These factors contributed to the selection of

this location.

Instruments

The battery of tests was comprised of

participants´ demographic information, EWI

(Oguntayo et al., 2023), Big Five Personality

Inventory (BFI-15; Gerlitz & Schupp, 2005) and

Climate Anxiety Scale (CAS; Clayton et al.,

2020), the details are as follows:

The EWI-11 is a measure environmental

worry with two subscales: (i) personal

experience of poor environmental conditions

that resulted in worry and (ii) proximal worry

about climate change and environmental

degradation (Oguntayo et al., 2023).

Construct validity (KMO of 0.892) was found

adequate. The reliability of the subscales is

dependable (proximal worry =.801; personal

experience of poor environmental worry .855),

with an overall Cronbach's alpha of 0.890. The

mean score was 44.10 and the standard

deviation was 11.47 for the general Nigerian

population (Oguntayo et al., 2023).

The CAS is a 13-item instrument designed to

measure anxiety associated with concerns

about climate change's effects (Clayton et

al., 2020). It examines the following two

aspects: Cognitive-emotional and functional

impairments, (“I have been directly affected

by climate change"), behavioral

engagement factors ("I recycle" and "Thinking

about climate change makes it difficult to

concentrate"), and functional impairments

("My concerns about climate change make it

difficult for me to have fun with my family or

friends") are examples of the items included.

CAS has been validated in the following

languages: English, German, Polish, and

French (Clayton et al., 2020; Wullenkord et al.,

2021; Larionow et al., 2022; Mouguiama-

Daouda et al., 2022). Similarly, reliability

coefficients in Mexican populations ranged

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

from 0.89 to 0.92, with the cognitive-emotional

impairments subscale scoring 0.81, the

functional impairments subscale scoring 0.83,

and the experience of climate change and

behavioral engagement scoring 0.71

(Ramírez-López et al., 2023). The greater a

person's score, the greater their concern for

climate change.

The BFI-15 is a scale for assessing five

personality traits: Openness,

Conscientiousness, Extraversion,

Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (Gerlitz et al.,

2005). The scale uses a 5-point Likert response

(1 =Strongly disagree to 5=Strongly agree);

here are the sample of the items; 'Prefers to be

alone', 'Seeks quiet, ‘Is assertive and takes

charge'; 'Can talk others into doing things',

'Enjoys being part of a group', and 'Holds back

from expressing my opinions'. The Kaiser-

Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index for the matrix of

correlations was acceptable (.717), and the

statistically significant Bartlett's sphericity test

was significant among Spanish speakers. This

suggests that the Big Five Inventory is valid and

relevant for use with the Mexican population

(Zamorano et al., 2014).

Procedure

The researchers began translating the EWI

from English to Spanish using native speakers

who are psychologists with masters and

doctoral degrees (the selection of these

experts was necessary to preserve the EWI's

original psychological meaning and adhere

to psychometric rules); the face validity of the

tool was evaluated by groups of doctoral

students in Social and Health psychology units,

and all 11-item of the EWI were retained

during this phase. In addition, once the

Spanish version of the EWI was adapted and

structured, a Google Form webpage

containing the EWI, CAS, and BFI-15

questionnaire was created, and participants

were shared the URLs.

The participants' freedom of participation,

privacy, anonymity, and exit during the

research were ensured, and informed consent

was obtained by limiting access to the survey

to those who clicked the "next" button as an

indication of their assent and willingness to

participate. The authors distributed the link to

students via WhatsApp class groups or

individual posts, as applicable, and those who

volunteered to participate completed the

survey and shared the link with their

colleagues. This procedure was repeated until

sufficient responses were received. In the

survey's final sections, respondents were

provided with a debriefing statement.

Data Analysis

The data from the hosted questionnaire

(Google Forms) were downloaded and

cleaned, and then descriptive statistics,

normal distribution proportion, exploratory

factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA), and correlation analyses were

analyzed using the statistical Package for the

Social Sciences (SPSS version 27) and the

AMOS (version 27) software.

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the authors’

institution ethical committee (Approval

number: CEI-2023-1-63). The study was carried

out in full compliance with the ethical

protocol, which includes informed consent,

participants protection, confidentiality, and

other basic considerations.

Results

The sample used in the EFA and CFA was

composed of 251 participants respectively.

There were no statistically significant

differences between the two samples in socio-

demographics and in levels on the EWI.

Descriptive Information of Participants

The study participants were 251 individuals

(47.0% male; 51.0% female), with a mean age

of 22.57 years (SD = 7.14). The participants who

were between the ages of 18-30 were 132

(51.6%), those aged 31–45 was 67 (26.7%), and

those between ages 46 and above were 52

(20.7%); for gender, males were 118 (47.0%)

and females were 128 (51.0%), while 4 (2.0%)

participants declared not their sex. For their

sexual orientation, participants who are

heterosexual were 195 (77.7%), and those with

sexual diversities were 50 (22.3%). For the

participants religions, 158 (62.9%) were

Christians, 6 (2.4%) were Muslims, and 46

(18.3%) declared themselves as free-thinkers

while others who did not mention their religions

were 41 (16.4%). The married participants were

41(16.3%), the participants that are either in a

free union or in romantic relationships were 74

(29.5%), and the single participants were 136

(54.2%); undergraduate students were 151

(60.2%), those in master's programs were 43

(17.1%), the doctorate participants were 38

(15.1%), and 19 (7.6%) disclose not their

program in the university.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

The study used the responses of 251

participants to analyze 11 items of the EWI

using the EFA, using the principal axis factors

method recommended when data are not

normally distributed, as previously checked

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

through QQ-plots (not shown) (Costello &

Osborne, 2019). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)

showed .904 and the Bartlett’s sphericity test

(p>.001) which indicated appropriateness of

the sample to conduct factor analyses

(Oguntayo et al., 2020; Sarmento et al., 2017).

If the highest factor loading of an item was

lower than .30, the item was eliminated, and if

an item had a shared factor loading (factor

loadings difference less than .20), the item was

removed. The final scale had 9 items with

unique factor loadings ranging from .51 to .84

(see Table I). Table I shows factors loadings for

the EFA of the EWI and the communalities

ranging from .53 to .70. The first factor

explained 48.05% of the total variance and it is

composed of five items (items 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11)

with factor loadings ranging from .51 to .84.

According to the theme of these items this

factor was labelled “Proximal worry

symptoms”. The second factor explained

10.5% of the total variance and it is composed

of four items (items 2, 8, 9, and 10) with factor

loadings ranging from .53 to .57. According to

the theme of these items this factor was

labelled “Personal-Experience worry”. These

decision and procedures were based on

recommendation of past literature (Brown,

2015; DeVellis, 2017; Sarmento et al., 2017).

More so, this combined approach could

probably increase the rigor, effectiveness,

and efficiency of a scale in a new population.

Figure I (scree plot) presented the two-

dimensionality result found in this study and

Table I showed the extracted data, and

variance rotation with the scale components

to demonstrate the relationship between the

data. The findings attained acceptability and

it help in the data visualization and

comprehending the factors that drive the

observed patterns, resulting in a simpler and

more intuitive data representation.

Table I, Rotated Component Matrix with Principal Component Analysis as Extraction Method and

Varimax for the Spanish EWI

Items

Factors

Spanish and English

PROX

EXP

Communalities

№

Items Retained

Me preocupan los desastres por inundaciones en mi entorno (I worry about flood

disasters in my environment).

.789

.633

Me preocupa la basura en el ambiente y la

defecación

al aire libre (I feel concerned

about the littering of the environment and open defecation).

.625

.560

preocupación

por los desastres naturales y el deterioro de los recursos de la tierra

me preocupa (Concern on natural disasters and deterioration of earth's resources

worry me).

.605

.535

Me siguen preocupando los pensamientos sobre la

extinción

de algunas especies

animales (Thoughts about the extinction of some animal species keep worrying me).

.588

.558

Tiendo a preocuparme cuando escucho sobre la escasez de alimentos y agua en mi

ubicación (I tend to worry when I hear about food and water scarcity in my location).

.678

.538

Me preocupa oponerme a los informes de lluvias escasas y excesivas a nivel mundial

(I feel concerned about opposing low rainfall and excessive rainfall reports globally).

.772

.680

Me preocupan los terremotos, los tornados y otros peligros ambientales (I feel

concerned about earthquakes, tornados, and other environmental hazards).

.787

.687

Cada vez que escucho sobre la debilidad de las capas de ozono, mi

corazón

late

más

rápido (Whenever I hear about the weakness of ozone layers my heart beats faster) .806

.666

Quema de arbustos y

exposición

al carbono

El dióxido me preocupa (Bush burning and exposure to carbon dióxido

give me

concerns).

Eigenvalues (%)

Explained variance (%)

Cumulative variance (%)

.556

48.05

10.5

58.5

.602

*Note: PROX= Proximal Worry; EXP.=Personal Experience of Environmental Worry.

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

Figure I, Screen Plot Showing the Sedimentation of Two-Factor Structure of the EWI.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

A sample of 251 participants performed the

cross-validation and finally, the confirmatory

factor structure. This factor structure was

verified through structural equation modelling

(SEM) using AMOS version 27. Testing whether

measures of this construct were consistent with

respondents' understanding of environmental

worry index in a selected Mexican university

sample, also known as confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA), revealed two factors with the

corresponding items in the exploratory factor

analysis (see Table I). Confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA; χ2 (24) = 43.666; p<.005) with the

measure of fit between the hypothesized

model and the observed covariance matrix,

also known as the goodness of fit index (GFI)

=.977, the SRMR standardized root mean

squared residual fit index (SRMR)=.04, the

discrepancy between the data and the

hypothesized model measure for model fit,

also known as comparative fit index

(CFI)=.974, the Tucker- Lewis index a

conventional cutoff value under maximum

likelihood (TLI)=.956 and NFI, RFI, and IFI are

ranging from 0.911 to 0.977 which indicate

that the model fits the data well. These values

are close to 1, which is a goodness of fit

criteria; more so, the root mean square error of

approximation (RMSEA)=0.062. This indicates

that the model fits the data reasonably well,

as considered by Shi et al. (2018) that an

RMSEA ≤ .06 could be considered.in this case

the fit indices such as RMSEA and SRMR

suggest the model has an acceptable fit.

The model of fit indexes concerning the

chi-square had the following results; the

PRATIO, PNFI, and PCFI measures assess the

balance between model fit and complexity

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

with the PRATIO of 0.556, which is below 1,

suggesting that the model is relatively

parsimonious, achieving good fit with

reasonable simplicity. The χ2 with 24 degrees

freedom was equal to 43.67 (p < .005). Other

Indexes value was AGFI = .91. The obtained

index reports an adequate model fit. Item

loadings for this model ranged from .60 to .99

(Figure I). Items 1, and 4 did not conform to the

resulting two factor structure found through

EFA and they were deleted (Cleff, 2019). It was

observed that when those items were deleted

and consideration of second order analysis,

the χ2 (24) = 45.766; p<.005) decrease to χ2

(24) = 43.666; p<.005) and the lower the chi-

square score the more adequate the data is

fit and adequate (Ballouet al., 2020), while

other goodness of fit consideration scores

were increase showing more appropriateness

of the data items retained. The diagram

presented in Figure II illustrates the postulated

associations between the latent variables and

the observable variables. The analysis of the

relative route coefficients reveals that the

proximal worry domain has a stronger

association with the latent trait compared to

the personal experience of worry. To establish

the validity of each subscale, an analysis was

conducted to investigate the factor loadings

of each item on its respective subscale. The

statistical analysis revealed substantial

connections among the latent variables

depicted in the path map, specifically

proximal worry (0.93) and personal worry

(0.83), when considering the correlations

among the subscales. Correlations are

indicated by the curved lines between the

observed variables as indicted in Figure II

(Norhayati & Nawi, 2021)

Table II, Showing the Intercorrelations among studied scales

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S.D

Agreeableness

4.40

1.56

Extraversion

.695**

5.14

2.05

Openness to Exp.

.551**

-.002

3.56

2.33

Neuroticism

.484**

.367**

.039

3.74

1.70

Conscientiousness

.513**

.393**

.223

-179

5.08

1.72

CAS

.035

.074

.154

-.092

11.3

13.1

EWI

.210

.212

.422**

.647**

38.1

6.68

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Figure II, showing the path coefficients, squared multiple correlations, and error variance of the

Factor Structure of the EWI with Item 1 and 4 Deleted.

*Note: PROX= Proximal Worry; EXP.= Personal Experience of Environmental Worry

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

Internal reliability

The internal reliability of each factor was

ascertained by means of the Cronbach’s

alpha index (α). The EWI Cronbach’s alpha

values for each of the two factors ranged

from .80 to .89 (see Table II). Most of the values

are adequate in cross-validation for both

exploratory and confirmatory groups. The

reliability for the complete scale was α = .890.

Convergent and divergent validity

Evidence of convergent (and divergent)

validity of the validated EWI was corroborated

through bivariate analyses resulting in

statistically significant correlations with

measures of Climate Anxiety Scale (r=.647,

p=.001), and the BFI-15 subscale such as

neuroticism (r=.422, p=.001). However, there

was no statistically significant relationship

between the EWI and other subscales of BFI-15

(Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, openness

to experience and extraversion. The positive

correlation between neuroticism, CAS, and

EWI demonstrated statistically significant

convergent validity; while the non-association

between other four dimensions of BFI-15

indicated discriminant validity of EWI with non-

anxious traits. Also, the mean score according

to this study was 38.1, SD=6.68 (see Table II).

Discussion

The objective of this study was to adapt

and validate the Environmental Worry Index

among Mexican students. This is owing to the

fact that Mexico is one of the most afflicted

countries as a result of both man-made

hazards, natural and adverse environmental

circumstances, as well as climate change, all

of which have produced both mental and

physical health difficulties for many people in

this region (Global Forest Watch, 2022; INECC,

2018; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change, 2014). This study accomplished its

primary objective, which was to adapt and

evaluate the psychometric properties of the

Spanish version of the EWI. The EFA, CFA and

correctional analyses were utilized to

determine the EWI’s validity and reliability. In

this way, this study was carried out, and the

measure was validated in a university

population during the winter and summer that

display more harsh weather conditions in

Juarez over the previous six months or longer.

This scale has never been validated in the

Spanish community; hence, this study with

Mexican students is required.

In effectively validating this two-

dimensional measure of environmental worry,

the study makes several noteworthy

contributions to the existing literature. This is

the first time EWI will be validated in another

population. The 1st and 4th items of the scale

was eliminated, these are items that measure

seems to assess some constructs peculiar to

sub-Saharan African contexts such flood

littering and open defecation (Belay et al.,

2022; Opayemi et al., 2020) were not loading

well of either EFA or CFA and were deleted;

this may not be a common adverse

environmental behavior in Juarez where the

study took place. The outcomes of the study

have been good; the EWI demonstrated

statistically significant convergent validity with

CAS, neuroticism and consciousness while

having divergent validity agreeableness. The

results were consistent and in agreement with

previous research (Clayton et al., 2020; Fornell

–Larcker, 1981; Ogunbode et al., 2022;

Materia 2016; Oguntayo et al., 2023). Studies

have shown that people with neurotic traits

have often exhibits worrying related symptoms

(APA, 2017; Opayemi et al., 2020), this implies

that people with existing fears of

environmental degradation might display

increasingly emotional instability that is

peculiar to both CAS, EWI and neuroticism.

Also, having a high score on this trait causes

anxiety and preoccupation with

apprehensions of negative side effects when

confronted climate change hazards

(Opayemi et al., 2020; Yıldız et al., 2021). The

results suggested that EWI consistently assess

patterns of emotional distress (worry).

Also, the results showed the high reliability

of EWI among the selected sample; the

procedure utilized fulfilled criteria that are

recommended for any reliable scale

(Sarmento et al., 2017; Clayton et al., 2017).

This implies that the index is a reliable measure

of environmental crises worry. Also, the mean

score according to this study was 38.1,

SD=6.68 as against the English version of EWI

(44.10, SD=11.47) (Oguntayo et al., 2023).

Several factors could contribute to the

differences between the mean score and

standard deviation of EWI in this study. The

population where EWI was initially developed

had a greater proportion of participants (925)

than the population of the current study (251

participants); therefore, it is anticipated that

the mean score for the higher participants

could be different (McCutchen et al., 2016).

Additionally, contextual-cultural, language,

socioeconomic, and demographic

differences may contribute to this disparity in

mean scores (McCutchen et al., 2016),

therefore, the disparity was anticipated.

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

Similar to initial study of EWI, this research

found two-factor components. Consistent with

previous research, the EWI identified affective

and behavioral symptoms, as well as present

and prospective anxiety, as key

characteristics of environmental worry.

Aspects of Clayton et al. (2020)'s cognitive-

emotional impairment included negative

emotions, cognitive disturbances, and

physical symptoms such as weeping and

sleeplessness. Nonetheless, these symptoms

are found in the two distinct EWI factors. Our

research contributes novel findings to the

literature on climate change anxiety and eco-

anxiety by demonstrating that worry as a

personal consequence of past experience

and potential future impacts is a distinct

dimension of environmental worry with distinct

correlates.

Limitations and Strengths of the

Study

Limitations of the study

Despite the usefulness of this study, certain

limitations needed to be observed. The index

is not intended for diagnostic purposes but as

an assessment tool. In addition, this survey

may be susceptible to respondent bias.

Focusing solely on a university student

population in a border city like Juarez may

limit the generalizability of the findings to

broader demographics. It may not fully

represent the experiences of other age groups

or cultural contexts of the city as whole. In

addition, the study may still inadvertently carry

some cultural bias, as cultural diversity is

complex and challenging to capture

comprehensively. Though, the study's cross-

sectional design offers a snapshot of eco-

anxiety at a particular moment, but it may not

capture the dynamic nature of these

concerns over time. Consequently, readers

should be cognizant of these, and future

research could investigate the applicability of

EWI to other populations.

Strengths of the study

The study's focus on a multicultural

population like UACJ in a Mexican border city

adds cultural relevance and specificity,

offering insights into how environmental worry

varies across different cultural contexts. Also,

the study's emphasis on adapting and

assessing the psychometrics of the

Environmental Worry Index demonstrates a

commitment to methodological rigor,

ensuring the reliability and validity of the

assessment tool. The research has the

potential to influence international policy by

providing data-driven insights into eco-anxiety

and its impact on mental health, contributing

to the development of targeted policies and

interventions to address this issue globally. This

study opens avenues for future research into

the intersection of environmental concerns

and mental health in multicultural contexts,

encouraging further exploration and policy

development in this important area of social,

environmental, and psychological interplay.

Conclusions

The Environmental Worry Index has been

successfully adapted, standardized, and

validated among a selected university

students who are Spanish-speaking

individuals. This instrument is capable of

assessing environmental hazard related worry

and facilitating the use of evidence-based

interventions to manage environmental

induced worry and distress. Similar to EWI’s

initial study, a distinctive two-dimensional

structure was found with acceptable reliability

and validity coefficients, but only retained 9

out of the 11 items. This scale is recommended

for use among researchers and clinicians who

are interested in conducting a comprehensive

assessment of the range of immediate human

experiences regarding ecological concerns

and future ecological anxiety.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no

conflicts of interest.

References

American Psychological Association. (2017,

March 29). Climate change's toll on

mental health [Press release].

https://www.apa.org/news/press/rele

ases/2017/03/climate-mental-health

Ballou, S., Gray, S., & Palsson, O. S. (2020).

Validation of the Pandemic Emotional

Impact Scale. Brain, behavior, &

immunity - health, 9, 100161.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbih.2020.100

161

Belay, D. G., Melaku, H. A., Fantu, M. A.,

Nuhamin, T. T., Mastewal, E. & Moges,

G. (2022). Open Defecation Practice

and Its Determinants among

Households in Sub-Saharan Africa:

Pooled Prevalence and Multilevel

Analysis of 33 Sub-Saharan Africa

Countries Demographic and Health

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

Survey. Tropical Medicine and Health.

BioMed Central.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-022-

00416-5.

Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation

modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,

applications, and programming.

Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410600219

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor

analysis for applied research. Guilford

Publications.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-

10560-000

Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. (2019). Best

practices in exploratory factor analysis:

four recommendations for getting the

most from your analysis. Practical

Assessment, Research, and Evaluation,

10, 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-

486

Clayton, S., & Manning, C. (Eds.).

(2018). Psychology and climate

change: Human perceptions, impacts,

and responses. Academic Press.

https://revistas.upr.edu/index.php/psic

ologias/article/view/21044/18584

Cleff, T. (2019). Factor Analysis. In: Applied

Statistics and Multivariate Data

Analysis for Business and Economics.

Springer, Cham.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-

17767-6_13

DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development:

Theory and applications (4th ed.).

Sage Publications. Centre for Research

on the Epidemiology of Disasters

(CRED). (2018). Natural disasters 2018.

https://reliefweb.int/report/world/natu

ral-disasters-2018

Gerlitz, J. Y., & Schupp, J. (2005). Zur Erhebung

der Big-Five-basierten

Persönlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP.

Dokumentation der

Instrumentenentwicklung BFI-S auf

Basis des SOEP-Pretests 2005. DIW

Research, Notes 4.

https://www.diw.de/documents/publi

cationen/73/43490/rn4.pdf

Global Forest Watch. (2022). Mexico

Deforestation Rates & Statistics

https://www.globalforestwatch

.org/dashboards/country/

Gómez, J. I, Prieto, G. J., & Martín, S. S. (2022).

Mental Health and Climate Change.

The Birth of Eco-Anxiety in the Spanish-

Language Press. Tripodos, (52), 13-33.

https://doi.org/10.51698/tripodos.2022.

52p13-33

Haaland, T. N. (2019). Growing up to a

disaster–How the youth conceptualize

life and their future in anticipation of

climate change. Master's thesis,

University of Stavanger, Norway. Helm,

S.V.Hickman, C. (2020). We need to

(find a way to) talk about … Eco-

anxiety. Journal of Social Work

Practice, 34, 411-424,

https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2020.

1844166

Hogg, T. L., Stanley, S. K, O’Brien, L. V., Wilson,

M. S., & Watsford, C. R. (2021). The

Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale: Development

and validation of a multidimensional

scale. Global Environmental Change,

71(102391), 1-10.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.20

21.10239

Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio

Climático (INECC). (2018). Fourth

National Communication of Mexico

under the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change.

Programas e Informes | Instituto

Nacional de Ecología y Cambio

Climático | Gobierno | gob.mx

(www.gob.mx) Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change. (2014).

Climate Change 2014: Impacts,

Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A:

Global and Sectoral Aspects;

Contribution of Working Group II to the

Fifth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. Cambridge University Press:

New York, NY, USA. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978110741

5379

Kelly, A. (2017). Eco-anxiety at university:

Student experiences and academic

perspectives on cultivating healthy

emotional responses to the climate

crisis. University of Colorado at

Boulder”.

https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/cgi/vi

ewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.

google.com/andhttpsredir=1andarticl

e=3665andcontext=isp_collection

Larionow, P., Sołtys, M., Izdebski, P., Mudło-

Głagolska, K., Golonka, J., Demski, M.,

& Rosińska, M. (2022). Climate Change

Anxiety Assessment: The Psychometric

Properties of the Polish Version of the

Climate Anxiety Scale. Frontiers in

psychology, 13, 870392.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.870

392

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

Materia, C. J. (2016). Climate state anxiety

and connectedness to nature in rural

Tasmania. Doctoral dissertation,

University of Tasmania.

McCutchen, K. L., Jones, M. H., Carbonneau,

K. J., & Mueller, C. E. (2016, January).

Mindset and standardized testing over

time. Learning and Individual

Differences, 45, 208–213.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.

027

Mouguiama-Daouda, C., Blanchard, M. A.,

Coussement, C., & Heeren, A. (2022).

On the Measurement of Climate

Change Anxiety: French Validation of

the Climate Anxiety Scale.

Psychologica Belgica, 62(1), 123–135.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1137

Norhayati, M. N., & Nawi, Z. M. (2021). Validity

and reliability of the Noor Evidence-

Based Medicine Questionnaire: A

cross-sectional study. PloS one, 16(4),

e0249660.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0

249660

Ogunbode, C. A., Rouven, D., Daniel, H.,

Maria, O., Katariina, S. A., Karlijn, L. &

van den, B. (2022). Climate anxiety,

wellbeing and pro-environmental

action: Correlates of negative

emotional responses to climate

change in 32 countries. Journal of

Environmental Psychology.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.10

1887

Oguntayo, R., Agberotimi, S., Ajao, P.,

Oladele, O., Olaseni, A., & Ajibewa, O.

(2023). Environmental Worry Index-11:

development, validity, and

reliability. International Journal of

Human Capital in Urban

Management, 8(1), 31-42. doi:

10.22034/IJHCUM.2023.01.03

Oguntayo, R., Olaseni, A. O., Kehinde, M. O.,

Osinowo, H.O., & Isaac, Y. I. (2020). A

Brief Propensity Index for Conduct

Disorder (BPI-CD): Development,

Validity and Reliability. Journal of

Professional Counselling and

Psychotherapy Research, 3(1), 209-

218.

https://doi.org/10.31730/osf.io/8tjp9

Opayemi, A. S., Oguntayo R., Popoola, A. O.,

& Alabi, A., (2020). Psychosocial factors

as determinants of littering prevention

behavior. International Journal of

Human Capital and Urban

Management, 5(1), 59-68.

https://doi.org/10.22034/IJHCUM.2020.

01.07

Pihkala, P. (2020). Anxiety and the Ecological

Crisis: An Analysis of Eco-Anxiety and

Climate Anxiety. Sustainability, 12, 1-20.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197836

Ramírez-López, A. S., Rosetti, M. F., & Poma, A.

(2023, June 1). Gender, Exposure to

News, Knowledge About Climate

Change, and Prosociality Predict

Climate Anxiety Scores in Mexican

Students. Ecopsychology, 15(2),184–

192.

https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2022.0049

Rethage, T., Dieter, E., Uwe, G., Dennis, N.,

Gerhard, A., Wiesmüller, M. L., Volker,

H., Nikolaos, I. S., Thomas, F. E. &

Caroline, E. W. H. (2008). Assessment of

environmental worry in health-related

settings: Re-evaluation and

modification of an environmental

worry scale. International journal of

hygiene and environmental

health, 211 (1-2), 105-13.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2007.01.

030

Si, H., Shi, J. G., Tang, D., Wen, S., Miao, W., &

Duan, K. (2019). Application of the

Theory of Planned Behavior in

Environmental Science: A

Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis.

International journal of environmental

research and public health, 16(15),

2788.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152788

Stewart, A. E. (2021). Psychometric Properties

of the Climate Change Worry

Scale. International Journal of

environmental research and public

health, 18(2), 494.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020494

Sarmento, R. P., & Costa, V. (2017).

Confirmatory factor analysis–a case

study. preprint arXiv:1905.05598.

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1905.055

Thompson, R., Emma, L., Lawrance, L. F.,

Roberts, K. G., Hutan,

A., Hendramoorthy, M., Mireille, B. T. &

Ara, D. (2023). Ambient temperature

and mental health: a systematic

review and meta-analysis. The Lancet.

Planetary health, 7(7), e580–e589.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-

5196(23)00104-3

Universidad Autonoma de Ciudad Juárez

(UACJ). (2022). Enrollment Analysis

2022-1.

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal

https://www.sciendo.com/journal/MHGCJ

ISSN 2612-2138

https://es.scribd.com/document/6033

32796/MATRICULA-2022-1

Wullenkord, M. C., Tröger, J., Hamann, K. R. S.,

Loy, L. S. & Reese, G. (2021). Anxiety

and climate change: a validation of

the Climate Anxiety Scale in a

German-speaking quota sample and

an investigation of psychological

correlates. Climatic Change, 168, 20.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-

03234-6

Yıldız, M., Tanimowo, A., Monti, M., Yıldırım, M.

S., Khadka, R. B., Sbaih, A. H., Haylı, I.

M., Tayyeb, M., Majumder, S., Uddin,

A., Noibi, T. O., & Okyar, G. (2021,

February 14). Individuals’ coronavirus

disease knowledge levels: A cross-

sectional survey in eleven countries.

Journal of Clinical Medicine of

Kazakhstan, 18(2), 8–13.

https://doi.org/10.23950/jcmk/9710

Zafa, S. (2022). Impacts of Environmental Crisis

on Mental Health. Bioenergy Consult.

Zamorano, E. R., Carrillo, C. Á., Silva, A.

P., Sandoval, A. M., & Pastrana, I. M. R.

(2014). Psychometric properties of the

big five inventory in a Mexican

sample. Salud Mental, 37(6), 491-497

https://doi.org/10.17711/SM.0185-

3325.2014.059