ArticlePLOS mental health2026
Can we trust this short scale? Validation of a Brief Self-Report Measure of Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity (ETMCQ-R-6) in a sample of the U.K. general population.
Article in PLOS mental 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concept of the epistemic stance (i.e., an individual's openness to learning from others) has been increasingly recognized as a key construct associated with mental health. This study validated a six-item short form of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ-R) in a UK quota-balanced community sample (N = 515). Using stepwise item reduction and confirmatory factor analysis, a three-factor structure with two items per subscale (trust, mistrust, credulity) was identified. The ETMCQ-R-6 showed acceptable fit (scaled χ²(6)=22.13, p = .001; robust CFI = .978; robust TLI = .945; robust RMSEA = .073 [90% CI: .042, .107]; SRMR = .029) and acceptable reliability for the trust (α = .75) and credulity (α = .77) subscales, while the mistrust subscale fell below the conventional threshold (α = ρ = ω = .68). Configural, metric, scalar, and structural invariance across gender and age groups was supported, while strict invariance was not established. Correlations between the long and short form were high (r = 0.83-0.87; φ = 0.95-1.00). Hierarchical regression analyses confirmed significant incremental predictive validity for epistemic mistrust and credulity across psychopathology outcomes, while the trust subscale demonstrated domain-specific incremental validity for attachment avoidance. The ETMCQ-R-6 offers a brief, psychometrically stable assessment of epistemic stance suitable for epidemiological research.
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.