SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2025
Reliability generalization meta-analysis of the Climate Change Worry Scale.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Climate change worry is an increasingly critical issue in eco-psychology literature. A commonly used instrument for measuring this construct is the Climate Change Worry Scale (CCWS), developed by Stewart. This Likert-type scale assesses individuals' climate change worry through 10 items clustered under a single factor. It has been adapted for multiple cultures and utilized in numerous studies conducted across various countries. Nevertheless, no study has synthesized the reliability values obtained from individual studies for the scale. The purpose of the current meta-analysis was to perform a reliability generalization for the CCWS. To this end, an exhaustive literature search was conducted from July 14 to November 17, 2024, in the EBSCO, ERIC, Taylor & Francis, PubMed, and Web of Science databases, as well as Google Scholar, using the keyword "Climate Change Worry Scale." After scrutinizing the identified studies for duplicates and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, the research focused on the 40 Cronbach's alpha coefficients acquired from 37 papers. The results of the analysis, which involved running the random effects model and the Bonnet transformation, indicated that the pooled Cronbach's alpha was 0.932 (95% CI = 0.919-0.942). The results of the moderator analysis revealed that the sample descriptors and study characteristics included in the meta-analysis did not significantly affect the reliability estimates. Accordingly, the CCWS was found to be an instrument that produces highly reliable measurements regardless of factors such as region, language, participants' age, and the total number of items answered during administration. Finally, the reliability induction rate was determined to be 29.41%. However, the high heterogeneity observed among the reliability estimates of the primary studies exposed the limitations of generalizing the reliability of CCWS scores across different populations and research conditions. This situation also emphasized the importance of providing detailed information about the scale's sample demographics and administration conditions when reporting reliability.
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.