Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40888372›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2025

Development and validation of the Revised Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ-R).

Chloe Campbell, Henry Delamain, Rob Saunders, Michal Tanzer, Alberto Milesi, Tobias Nolte, Elizabeth Allison, Patrick Luyten, Peter Fonagy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Chloe CampbellResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0592-9949
Henry DelamainResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Rob SaundersResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7077-8729
Michal TanzerResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Alberto MilesiDepartment of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.
Tobias NolteResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Elizabeth AllisonResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Patrick LuytenResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Peter FonagyResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0229-0091

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has been argued that disruptions to epistemic trust are implicated in psychopathology; however, this requires empirical testing, and an existing scale evaluating epistemic trust, the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ), requires improvement.

aimsThis study tested a revised version of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity Questionnaire (the ETMCQ-R), examining the strength of associations between the updated scale and mental health symptoms, epistemic vice, psychological resilience, perceived social support, attachment style, history of childhood adversity and an experimental measure of trust, and epistemic stance as a mediator between adversity and psychopathology.

methodUsing an online survey design, 525 participants completed the ETMCQ-R alongside other measures. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to assess the structure of the ETMCQ-R and correlational and mediational analyses were used to further assess validity of the measure.

resultsThe ETMCQ-R possesses greater model fit and a stronger three-factor structure (Trust, Mistrust and Credulity) compared with the ETMCQ. Significant negative correlations were identified between Trust (

conclusionThe study demonstrated strong psychometric properties of the ETMCQ-R, and further analyses indicate the three factors are differentially related to wider domains of socio-emotional functioning.

Indexed as

childhood adversitydevelopmental psychopathologyEpistemic trustmentalisingpsychopathology

Identifiers

PMID40888372
PMCPMC12451556

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.