ArticlePloS one2026
Measuring trust in public health authorities in the United States: An item response theory analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trust in public health authorities is central to effective public health governance, shaping communication, policy implementation, and collective action. Despite its importance, trust has been measured using a wide range of approaches, and comparatively few studies rely on validated instruments, limiting comparability across studies and contexts. This study applies Item Response Theory (IRT) to refine the beneficence dimension of the Trust in Public Health Authorities (TiPHA) Scale, originally developed and validated by Holroyd et al. (2021) using confirmatory factor analysis. Using cross-sectional, nationally representative data from the 2024 RAND American Life Panel Omnibus Wave 17 survey (n = 2,034), we evaluated the dimensionality and item-level performance of the eight-item TiPHA beneficence subscale. A graded response model was estimated to assess item discrimination, threshold ordering, and information. Results supported unidimensionality and high internal consistency for the full subscale (α = 0.88), but revealed substantial variation in item performance. Three negatively worded items demonstrating very low discrimination and minimal information were removed. The resulting five-item scale retained robust reliability (α = 0.88) and exhibited stronger measurement coherence, providing greater precision at moderate to high levels of trust. Posterior latent trait estimates were generated and rescaled to a 0-10 metric for interpretability. When applied descriptively across sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics, the refined trust score exhibited modest but interpretable variation, with higher average trust observed among older adults and individuals with higher educational attainment, consistent with prior theoretical expectations. These patterns support the scale's use as a population-based measure of trust in public health authorities. Future research should apply this refined scale in multivariable and intersectional analyses to examine whether observed differences persist after accounting for correlated social, economic, and structural factors.
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.