ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Comparing Single-Item and Multi-Item Trust Scales: Insights for Assessing Trust in Project Leaders.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dietary behaviors, lifestyle habits, food insecurity risk and depressive symptoms among New York City adolescents: a cross-sectional study.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Trusting in times of the COVID-19 crisis: Workplace and government trust and depressive symptoms among healthcare workers.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2025Article
- Association between nursing work environment, burnout, and turnover intention: A cross-sectional study in Greece.AIMS public health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to provide researchers and leaders with a reliable and up-to-date comparison between a single-item and a multi-item trust scale, enabling effective assessment of team members' trust in their leaders. The aim of the study is to investigate whether a single-question scale is as reliable as a multi-item questionnaire in measuring trust. An additional goal is to provide researchers with insights and conditions for effectively using single or multiple measures to assess trust in leaders, considering factors like reliability and effectiveness. After conducting a comprehensive literature review, data were collected from 101 project members in Brazil using a survey methodology. The respondents were asked to provide feedback regarding their leaders, specifically project managers, and factor analysis was then employed to test the single-item and multi-item measures of trust. The advantages and disadvantages of each approach are discussed. The findings of our study demonstrate that both single-item and multi-item scales of trust should be utilized to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the trust construct. Single-item questionnaires can reduce survey length, improve respondent friendliness, and increase participant willingness. On the other hand, multi-item questionnaires enable researchers to analyze latent variables that contribute to an overall variable, but they cannot isolate data for each of those constructs. The results show that both measures are reliable, providing researchers and professionals with insights into the benefits and drawbacks associated with each method. Consequently, this research equips researchers and project professionals with valuable information for selecting the appropriate measurement tool.
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.