ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
What drives adult vaccine hesitancy? Content and face validation of a new measure for U. S. Adults.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Vaccine hesitancy is viewed as a complex interaction of behavioral and societal factors that can intervene in the uptake of vaccines or lack thereof. To date, no existing instrument developed for the U. S. adult population measures general vaccine hesitancy in a way that integrates behavioral and cognitive determinants and generalizes across vaccines rather than targeting a specific disease. The development of this tool will be useful for clinicians to counsel patients on vaccination and for vaccine related public health interventions targeted at improving population health. Methods: Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, 38 items were developed to be rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Eight subject matter experts across the United States completed a content validity review to determine the relevance of survey items. Face validity feedback was collected from three self-reported vaccine-hesitant, one with a neutral stance on vaccines, and three not vaccine-hesitant individuals. Results: Item-Level CVI (I-CVI) ranged from 0.38 to 1.00 for the initial 38 items. Five items were dropped due to low CVI scores, face validity feedback, and similarity to other items. Four items were revised to incorporate the viewpoints of comparable items, address face validity feedback, and improve overall clarity and alignment with the survey's objectives. Lastly, two items below the I-CVI threshold of 0.80 were retained after the research team deemed them necessary for addressing general vaccine hesitancy in the adult population. The Scale-Level CVI (S-CVI) was 0.87 across all 38 items initially rated and 0.90 for the final 33-item scale, indicating strong content validity, and the final survey consists of 33 items. Conclusion: This tool lays the groundwork for better understanding the barriers associated with vaccination and hesitancies that prevent the growth of herd immunity and overall vaccination uptake. Pilot testing on a large sample of the adult population is required to refine the tool items further.
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.