ArticleBMC psychology2023
Developing and validation of COVID-19 media literacy scale among students during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in BMC psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Measuring Instruments for Media Health Literacy: A Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis cross-sectional validation work evaluated the psychometric features of the COVID-19 Media Literacy Scale (C-19MLs) in Students.
methodsThe study was conducted on 530 students from a medical university in Hamadan, Iran, who were recruited through a stratified cluster random sampling process in June-July 2020. Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and internal consistency were used to assess the reliability. Moreover, CFA (Confirmatory Factor Analyses) and EFA (Exploratory Factor Analyses) were carried out to examine construction validity. CVR (Content Validity Ratio) and CVI (Content Validity Index) were used to examine the content validity.
resultsAccording to the factor analysis, it was indicated that the C-19MLs included 21 items measuring five dimensions (constructedness of credible Covid-19 media messages, contractedness of fake media coronavirus messages, fake media coronavirus messages, audience, with three questions in each factor; format, represented lifestyles in fake media coronavirus messages with six questions in each factor) for an explanation of 58.4% of the prevalent variance. The average scores for the CVI and CVR were respectively 0.94 and 0.77. According to confirmatory factor analysis, the studied model had an appropriate fitting to the data; the relative chi-square (x2/df) = 2.706 < 3, RMSEA = 0.093 ≤ 0.1; CFI = 0.893 ≥ 0.9; TLI = 0.874 ≥ 0.9; GFI = 0.816 ≥ 0.9; and SRMR = 0.06 ≤ 0.08. Further analyses represented acceptable findings for internal consistency reliability values with 0.86 of Cronbach's alpha.
conclusionsThe results proved that the C-19MLs is a reliable and valid tool, and it is suitable and acceptable now and can be utilized in forthcoming investigations. This highlights educators and stakeholders to realize the importance of participating individuals in the new media ecology and new 'Infomedia' ecosystems for enabling people in the current digital society.
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.