We sought to develop and validate a self-assessment burnout scale of the Chinese general population during the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of a dynamic zero-COVID policy. Factors relevant to individuals’ burnout during the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic were identified in the literature and through the reviews of an expert panel. A convenience sample of 1087 was randomly divided into two subsamples and the scale’s psychometric properties were assessed. Findings suggested that the COVID-19 BFS has adequate reliability (α = 0.90) along with factorial, concurrent, and convergent validity. Results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the one-factor structure of the scale. Concurrent validity results indicate a significant positive correlation between COVID-19 BFS and the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (r = 0.131, p < 0.001), suggesting that individuals with higher levels of burnout may also have higher levels of fear of COVID, or vice versa. The scale was also correlated positively with being against the dynamic zero-COVID strategy (r = 0.340, p < 0.001), indicating that a higher level of burnout may be associated with individuals who are against the dynamic zero-COVID strategy. The results suggest the five-item COVID-19 BFS is a valid and reliable scale for the measurement of burnout frequency of the Chinese general population in relation to the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic in a dynamic zero-COVID policy context.

In response to growing concerns over negative emotions towards climate change worldwide, it is essential that a validated and reliable scale is available for the generalizability of the constructs being measured, and it is not just applicable to Western context, but also the East. The present study aims to conduct a psychometric investigation of the 13-item Climate Change Anxiety Scale (CCAS) of Clayton and Karazsia in Traditional Chinese using a large sample (N = 1,567) of Chinese individuals in Hong Kong, China. The CCAS was translated, back-translated, cross-culturally adapted and pilot-tested. We performed descriptive, scale reliability, exploratory factor and confirmatory factor analyses. Unlike the two-factor structure of the original scale, our results revealed a three-factor structure of the 13-item CCAS version that captured three dimensions of climate change anxiety: intrusive symptoms, reflections on climate anxiety, and functional impairment. The scale showed good goodness-of-fit indices, internal consistency and reliability. The Chinese CCAS version demonstrated high levels of reliability estimates and significant, albeit weak, correlations with the relevant constructs of well-being, anxiety and depression, environmental orientation, self-efficacy and belief denial. Overall, the Chinese CCAS version has good reliability and validity, and it can be used as a valid assessment tool for climate change anxiety screening with Chinese individuals, thus providing a foundation for better understanding various climate change–related emotions through an anxiety lens in the Chinese context.