The main objective of this study is to investigate the level of disaster preparedness and associated socio-demographic characteristics of Meskhetian Turks as a marginalized population who migrated to Erzincan, Turkey due to war and conflict.

A total of 426 individuals between the ages of 18-65 participated in this study. Data were collected through face-to-face interview technique by utilizing the General Disaster Preparedness Belief Scale. The t test and one-way ANOVA test and multiple regression analysis (Enter model) were used to analyze the data.

The total scale scores of the participants ranged between 80-138, with a mean score of 105.43±10.88. It was determined that the disaster preparedness levels of those who were between 32-38 years of age, who had bachelor’s degree, who had disaster experience, and who received disaster training were higher. It was determined that there was a significant positive relationship between the disaster preparedness levels of the participants and age, education level, and disaster training.

Disaster preparedness levels of Meskhetian Turks were determined to be high. According to the results of the analyses, it was revealed that age, education level, and disaster training variables have a positive and significant effect on the level of disaster preparedness.

There is no universal tool for measuring disaster preparedness in the general population. This study aimed to provide a summary of the domains and psychometric properties of the available scales that assess preparedness for disasters, or one of its main types, among individuals or households.

This study is a systematic review of the literature on disaster preparedness tools. Studies published up to December 2022 were identified through a systematic search of four databases: Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) were used to review and evaluate the psychometric properties. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used to report this article.

Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. Among them, five scales measured general disaster preparedness, five measured earthquake preparedness, one measured flood preparedness, and one measured bushfire preparedness. The scales had a number of dimensions ranging from one to six. The most common item topics in the included scales were as follows: having an evacuation plan (n = 7), information source (n = 7), fire extinguisher (n = 6), and emergency kit (n = 5). The scales were rated sufficient for content validity (n = 10), structural validity (n = 5), internal consistency (n = 5), and test-re-test reliability (n = 6). One scale was checked for criterion validity and was rated as insufficient according to the COSMIN guidelines.

The findings suggest the need to improve the psychometric properties of the scales, expand their contents, and develop scales relevant to target populations. This study provides useful information for researchers to develop comprehensive assessment tools and valuable sources of items for future scales.