ArticlePloS one2025
Epistemically unwarranted beliefs scale, development and evidence of validity in the Chilean population.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study of epistemically unwarranted beliefs (EUB) (i.e., paranormal, pseudoscientific and conspiracy beliefs) has become relevant due to the negative effects they have produced on people's health, as evidenced in the covid-19 pandemic. However, there is no instrument with appropriate and updated validity evidence for its evaluation in Latin American people. Because of this, the present study aims to develop a brief scale to analyze general epistemically unwarranted beliefs that do not depend on local factors. A total of 634 adults from five Chilean cities participated in the study of whom 93.8% (n = 575) were university students. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the final structure of the Epistemically Unwarranted Beliefs Scale (EUBS) considers 9 items with three related factors. In addition, results showed good internal consistency (CFI > .95; TLI > .95; RMSEA < .07), gender invariance, and evidence of validity based on the inverse relation with the cognitive reflection test and the relationship with sociodemographic variables (i.e., gender, political orientation, and religious orientation). Finally, implications for the theoretical construct and possible limitations of the scale are discussed.
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.