ArticleVaccines2022
The Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of the Polish Version of the Adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (PL-aVHS) in the Context of Attitudes toward COVID-19 Vaccination.
Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Exploring the Relationship Between Susceptibility to Health Misinformation and Vaccine Hesitancy in Poland.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Determinants of vaccination willingness among people experiencing homelessness: a cross-sectional study in Warsaw, Poland.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Validation and psychometric evaluation of the Arabic Adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Discriminative Cut-Offs, Concurrent Criterion Validity, and Test-Retest Reliability of the Oxford Vaccine Hesitancy Scale.Vaccines · 2025Article
- Validity and Reliability of the Greek Version of Adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale in Terms of Dispositional Optimism in a Community-Dwelling Population: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The association of conspiracy beliefs and the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Assessing COVID-19 Vaccine Booster Hesitancy Using the Modified 5C Scale in Zhejiang Province, China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Vaccines · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Vaccine hesitancy has become a pivotal consideration in assessing society's readiness to accept recommended vaccination programs. The role of vaccination as a preventive measure during great epidemic challenges cannot be overestimated. On the other hand, the overwhelming flow of misinformation and attitudes resulting from denialism may have a profoundly harmful effect on the acceptance of preventive interventions. The adult Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (aVHS) is a result of efforts to develop a tool that will be relevant to the views about vaccination in the general adult population. It was derived from the Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (VHS), initially developed by researchers attempting to assess the opinions and attitudes of parents. This study's main aim was to determine the reliability and validity of the Polish version of aVHS (PL-aVHS). We have also analyzed whether the scale can feasibly predict the COVID-19 vaccination status of respondents. The analysis was performed on data originating from a computer-based web-interviewing (CAWI) survey of 2008 adult Internet users. It included the analysis of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and hypotheses testing. Exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were performed on the subsets generated by randomly splitting the initial survey data. We have found that the scale has excellent internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.935), acceptable levels of inter-item bivariate correlations, and good test-retest reliability (interclass correlation coefficient, ICC = 0.843). The EFA revealed that the tool has a two-factor latent structure; however, similar loadings of item 10 to both factors spoke for its exclusion from the model. Two extracted factors were responsible for 68.90% of the variance after rotation based on the maximum likelihood method. The CFA showed that the best fit of the model to measurement data was obtained for the two-factor model after excluding item 10. All seven fit indexes calculated in the analysis suggested at least an acceptable fit. In conclusion, the assessment of the PL-aVHS revealed good reliability and validity of the instrument. Furthermore, we have obtained similar EFA results as reported for the English version of the tool. Finally, to our knowledge, it is one of a few tools available in Polish for the measurement of vaccine-related attitudes.
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.