ArticleEpidemiology and infection2022
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.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Health Media Literacy Intervention Increases Skepticism of Both Inaccurate and Accurate Cancer News Among U.S. Adults.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2024Trial
- Exposure to low-credibility online health content is limited and is concentrated among older adults.Nature aging · 2026Article
- Conspiratorial thinking in a 50-state survey of American adults.Journal of affective disorders · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Testing Preferences in Rural and Vulnerable Populations During a Pandemic: Discrete Choice Experiment.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Article
- The sociodemographic correlates of conspiracism.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Social corrections act as a double-edged sword by reducing the perceived accuracy of false and real news in the UK, Germany, and Italy.Communications psychology · 2024Article
- Exploring Attitudes Toward "Sugar Relationships" Across 87 Countries: A Global Perspective on Exchanges of Resources for Sex and Companionship.Archives of sexual behavior · 2024Article
- Cross-language validation of COVID-19 Compliance Scale in 28 languages.Epidemiology and infection · 2023Article
- On modeling the correlates of conspiracy thinking.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The psychological and political correlates of conspiracy theory beliefs.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.