Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42192478›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2026

Replicability or revision? Further evidence on the psychometric quality of the German version of the epistemic trust, mistrust and credulity questionnaire.

Nicola-Hans Schwarzer, Noëlle Behringer, Paula Dees, Stephan Gingelmaier, Melanie Henter, Holger Kirsch, Tillmann Kreuzer, Robert Langnickel, Pierre-Carl Link, Sascha Müller and 2 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Nicola-Hans SchwarzerDepartment of Special Education, Heidelberg University of Education, Keplerstr. 87, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany. schwarzer@ph-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4864-2283
Noëlle BehringerDepartment of Social Work and Health Care, Ludwigshafen University of Business and Society, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Paula DeesDepartment of Special Education, Heidelberg University of Education, Keplerstr. 87, Heidelberg, 69120, Germany.
Stephan GingelmaierDepartment of Emotional and Social Development, Ludwigsburg University of Education, Ludwigsburg, Germany.
Melanie HenterDepartment for Special Education, University of Kaiserslautern-Landau, Landau, Germany.
Holger KirschUniversity of Applied Sciences, Darmstadt, Germany.
Tillmann KreuzerDepartment for Special Education, Freiburg University of Education, Freiburg, Germany.
Robert LangnickelDepartment for Diversity and Inclusive Education, Luzern University of Education, Luzern, Switzerland.
Pierre-Carl LinkInstitute for Educational Support for Behaviour, Social-Emotional, and Psychomotor Development, University of Teacher Education in Special Needs Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Sascha MüllerDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine, Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany.
Agnes TurnerDepartment of Instructional and School Development, University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria.
Tobias NolteAnna Freud, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ) assesses individual differences in epistemic stances. Although widely used, its German translation has not yet undergone an independent psychometric evaluation.

methodWe administered the German ETMCQ to 567 university students and performed confirmatory factor analyses to compare the original 15-item model with several published modifications to further examine psychometric properties of the instrument. We assessed model fit, convergent validity, composite reliability, and internal consistency. Nomological validity was evaluated via latent correlations with attachment insecurity, ineffective mentalizing, emotion regulation, childhood maltreatment, and mental health symptoms.

resultsNeither the 15-item nor the 12-item models achieved acceptable fit. Across all models tested, average variance extracted values remained below 0.50, and composite reliabilities failed to reach Jöreskog's rho ρ ≥ 0.70 for any of the three subscales. Internal consistency was marginally acceptable for the trust, mistrust, and credulity subscales. Nomological analyses revealed theory-consistent associations for mistrust and credulity but revealed weaker, divergent patterns for trust.

conclusionsThese findings highlight psychometric limitations in the current German version of the ETMCQ in this specific population. Before broader use, we recommend comprehensive item revision, multimethod validation, and cross-language invariance testing.

Indexed as

PsychometricsTrustAdolescentAdultFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleGermanyHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultEpistemic credulityEpistemic mistrustEpistemic trustFactor analysisPsychometric evaluation

Identifiers

PMID42192478
PMCPMC13202747

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.