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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |