ArticlePloS one2024
Validation of the Argentine version of the epistemic trust, mistrust, and credulity questionnaire.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can we trust this short scale? Validation of a Brief Self-Report Measure of Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity (ETMCQ-R-6) in a sample of the U.K. general population.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Development and validation of the Revised Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ-R).BJPsych open · 2025Article
- Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ) validation in French language: Exploring links to loneliness.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epistemic trust refers to the trust in communicated knowledge, specifically an individual's ability to regard knowledge conveyed by others as meaningful, relevant to oneself, and applicable to other contexts. This area has received considerable attention in recent psychological literature, though predominantly from a theoretical perspective. The main objective of this study was to test the factorial validity of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ) on an Argentine setting. Based on two studies (Study 1, n = 1018; Study 2, n = 559), the factorial structure of the instrument and its internal consistency were examined (S1 Appendix). In the second study, the factorial structure was confirmed, test-retest reliability was analysed, and associations between epistemic stances and sociodemographic variables, hypomentalisation, attachment styles, childhood traumatic experiences, and anxious-depressive symptomatology were explored. A satisfactory three-factor solution with 15 items and residual correlations was found in both studies, with stable scores over time. Significant positive correlations were found with anxious and fearful-avoidant attachment, hypomentalisation, childhood traumatic experiences, and psychopathological symptomatology. Post-hoc analysis revealed that, on the one hand, gender acts as a moderator in the relationship between hypomentalisation and epistemic mistrust. On the other hand, economic level and educational level moderate the relationship between hypomentalisation and epistemic credulity. Measurement invariance across gender was tested and found satisfactory, with significant differences subsequently observed in the epistemic trust factor. In conclusion, the Argentine version of the ETMCQ provides an empirical measure for use in non-clinical samples. Its application could facilitate clinically and theoretically relevant findings.
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.