*2.4. Statistical Analysis*

Means, standard deviations (SD), and percentages of the responses were computed for each item of the SAS and EAQ questionnaires. For each questionnaire, the items were sorted in descending order of severity.

Following Zung's procedure, an overall SAS index was calculated by dividing the sum of the scores on the 20 items by the maximum score of 80, and multiplying by 100 [20,24]. Similarly, for each item, an SAS index was calculated, considering the maximum score of 4.

The differences between males and females were investigated using the independent *t*-test.

The Pearson correlation was used to measure the strength of the relationship between SAS and EAQ. A *p* value < 0.05 was set as an indication of statistical significance for the analyses.

#### **3. Results**

None of the participants had been directly affected by COVID or were at high risk of contagion. For demographic conditions, study participants were a homogeneous group. They all had a middle socioeconomic status, and came from three regions of southern Italy (Sicilia, Campania, and Calabria).

Table 1 shows the mean and standard deviation of absolute values out of a maximum score of 4, as well as the SAS index of items of anxiety severity (listed in descending order). The SAS overall mean score was 42.2 ± 4.7 with an SAS index of 52.7. In 12 out of 20 items, the mean agreement score was higher than or equal to 2 (on maximum 4), indicating that, in these items, most participants tended to choose the high anxious agreement responses "good part of the time", coded as 3, or "most or all of the time", coded as 4. The item recording the highest score was item number 13, concerning breathing difficulties ("I can breathe in and out easily"), with a mean of 3.4 ± 0.81 and an SAS index of 85.


**Table 1.** Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS): mean, standard deviations, and SAS index listed in descending order.

Similarly, in item 19 of sleep disorder ("I fall asleep easily and get a good night's rest"), the mean was 2.6 ± 0.10. Likewise, for items of anxiety, panic, negative expectations of the future, or somatic signals of anxiety, i.e., item 1, "I feel more nervous and anxious than usual" (mean 2.5 ± 0.68); item 3, "I get upset easily or feel panicky" (mean 2.4 ± 0.78); item 5, "I feel that everything is all right and

nothing bad will happen" (mean 2.3 ± 0.79); and item 17 "My hands are usually dry and warm" (mean 2.4 ± 1.0).

On the contrary, the lowest score items referred to somatic disorders, such as item 12, "I have fainting spells or feel like it" (mean 1.4 ± 0.63), where 96% of participants had chosen the lowest scores ("none or a little of the time" coded as 1 or "some of the time" coded as 2), or item 6 "My arms and legs shake and tremble" (mean 1.4 ± 0.78), where participants tended to choose the lowest scores (1 or 2).

Table 2 displays mean values, standard deviations, and the percentage scores in the EAQ and in its individual subscales, in descending order. "Attending to others' emotions", "analyses of own emotions", and "differentiating emotions" were the subscales with the highest scores, indicating high specific emotional abilities. In these subscales, the average agreement score was between two and three, showing that most participants tended to choose between "sometimes true" coded as 2 and "often true", coded as 3.


**Table 2.** Emotion Awareness Questionnaire (EAQ) and its 5 subscales: means, standard deviations, and percentages listed in descending order.

Conversely, "verbal sharing of emotions" and "not hiding emotions" subscales reached the lowest scores, indicating a low specific emotional ability. In both scales, the average agreement score was below 2, showing that most participants tended to choose between "not true" coded as 1, or "sometimes true" coded as 2. For example, item 6 of the verbal sharing of emotions subscale: "when I am upset about something, I often keep it to myself" (mean 1.70 ± 0.68); or item 15 of the not hiding emotions' subscale: "when I am upset, I try not to show it" (mean 1.78 ± 0.71).

Furthermore, both SAS and the EAQ scores were examined in relation to sex. Female anxiety total scale scores appeared significantly higher than those of males (43.5 ± 4.6 vs. 39.3 ± 3.7; t146 = 3.06; *p* = 0.003), but not EAQ scores (57.9 ± 10.4 vs. 58.3 ± 8.3; t146 = 0.15, *p* = 0.88).

SAS total score and EAQ total score did not correlate and the Pearson correlation index was very close to zero (r = −0.09, *p* = 0.28). Correlations between SAS total scores and individual EAQ subscales were similarly low.
