Cargando…

Validity testing of the conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiment scales during the COVID-19 pandemic across 24 languages from a large-scale global dataset

In this study, we tested the validity across two scales addressing conspiratorial thinking that may influence behaviours related to public health and the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the COVIDiSTRESSII Global Survey data from 12 261 participants, we validated the 4-item Conspiratorial Thinking Scale and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Han, Hyemin, Blackburn, Angélique M., Jeftić, Alma, Tran, Thao Phuong, Stöckli, Sabrina, Reifler, Jason, Vestergren, Sara
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9530382/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36093606
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268822001443
_version_ 1784801669321588736
author Han, Hyemin
Blackburn, Angélique M.
Jeftić, Alma
Tran, Thao Phuong
Stöckli, Sabrina
Reifler, Jason
Vestergren, Sara
author_facet Han, Hyemin
Blackburn, Angélique M.
Jeftić, Alma
Tran, Thao Phuong
Stöckli, Sabrina
Reifler, Jason
Vestergren, Sara
author_sort Han, Hyemin
collection PubMed
description In this study, we tested the validity across two scales addressing conspiratorial thinking that may influence behaviours related to public health and the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the COVIDiSTRESSII Global Survey data from 12 261 participants, we validated the 4-item Conspiratorial Thinking Scale and 3-item Anti-Expert Sentiment Scale across 24 languages and dialects that were used by at least 100 participants per language. We employed confirmatory factor analysis, measurement invariance test and measurement alignment for internal consistency testing. To test convergent validity of the two scales, we assessed correlations with trust in seven agents related to government, science and public health. Although scalar invariance was not achieved when measurement invariance test was conducted initially, we found that both scales can be employed in further international studies with measurement alignment. Moreover, both conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiments were significantly and negatively correlated with trust in all agents. Findings from this study provide supporting evidence for the validity of both scales across 24 languages for future large-scale international research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9530382
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Cambridge University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95303822022-10-04 Validity testing of the conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiment scales during the COVID-19 pandemic across 24 languages from a large-scale global dataset Han, Hyemin Blackburn, Angélique M. Jeftić, Alma Tran, Thao Phuong Stöckli, Sabrina Reifler, Jason Vestergren, Sara Epidemiol Infect Original Paper In this study, we tested the validity across two scales addressing conspiratorial thinking that may influence behaviours related to public health and the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the COVIDiSTRESSII Global Survey data from 12 261 participants, we validated the 4-item Conspiratorial Thinking Scale and 3-item Anti-Expert Sentiment Scale across 24 languages and dialects that were used by at least 100 participants per language. We employed confirmatory factor analysis, measurement invariance test and measurement alignment for internal consistency testing. To test convergent validity of the two scales, we assessed correlations with trust in seven agents related to government, science and public health. Although scalar invariance was not achieved when measurement invariance test was conducted initially, we found that both scales can be employed in further international studies with measurement alignment. Moreover, both conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiments were significantly and negatively correlated with trust in all agents. Findings from this study provide supporting evidence for the validity of both scales across 24 languages for future large-scale international research. Cambridge University Press 2022-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9530382/ /pubmed/36093606 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268822001443 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Han, Hyemin
Blackburn, Angélique M.
Jeftić, Alma
Tran, Thao Phuong
Stöckli, Sabrina
Reifler, Jason
Vestergren, Sara
Validity testing of the conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiment scales during the COVID-19 pandemic across 24 languages from a large-scale global dataset
title Validity testing of the conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiment scales during the COVID-19 pandemic across 24 languages from a large-scale global dataset
title_full Validity testing of the conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiment scales during the COVID-19 pandemic across 24 languages from a large-scale global dataset
title_fullStr Validity testing of the conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiment scales during the COVID-19 pandemic across 24 languages from a large-scale global dataset
title_full_unstemmed Validity testing of the conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiment scales during the COVID-19 pandemic across 24 languages from a large-scale global dataset
title_short Validity testing of the conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiment scales during the COVID-19 pandemic across 24 languages from a large-scale global dataset
title_sort validity testing of the conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiment scales during the covid-19 pandemic across 24 languages from a large-scale global dataset
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9530382/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36093606
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268822001443
work_keys_str_mv AT hanhyemin validitytestingoftheconspiratorialthinkingandantiexpertsentimentscalesduringthecovid19pandemicacross24languagesfromalargescaleglobaldataset
AT blackburnangeliquem validitytestingoftheconspiratorialthinkingandantiexpertsentimentscalesduringthecovid19pandemicacross24languagesfromalargescaleglobaldataset
AT jefticalma validitytestingoftheconspiratorialthinkingandantiexpertsentimentscalesduringthecovid19pandemicacross24languagesfromalargescaleglobaldataset
AT tranthaophuong validitytestingoftheconspiratorialthinkingandantiexpertsentimentscalesduringthecovid19pandemicacross24languagesfromalargescaleglobaldataset
AT stocklisabrina validitytestingoftheconspiratorialthinkingandantiexpertsentimentscalesduringthecovid19pandemicacross24languagesfromalargescaleglobaldataset
AT reiflerjason validitytestingoftheconspiratorialthinkingandantiexpertsentimentscalesduringthecovid19pandemicacross24languagesfromalargescaleglobaldataset
AT vestergrensara validitytestingoftheconspiratorialthinkingandantiexpertsentimentscalesduringthecovid19pandemicacross24languagesfromalargescaleglobaldataset