Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42672075›Full record

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.

David Riedl, Henry Delamain, Peter Fonagy, Astrid Lampe, Samuel Eke, Tobias Nolte, Hanna Kampling, Johannes Kruse, Chloe Campbell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

David RiedlLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Rehabilitation Research, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0518-3144
Henry DelamainResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Peter FonagyResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0229-0091
Astrid LampeLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Rehabilitation Research, Vienna, Austria.
Samuel EkeUniversity Hospital of Psychiatry II, Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics and Medical Psychology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Tobias NolteResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Hanna KamplingDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Johannes KruseDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Chloe CampbellResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42672075
PMCPMC13529005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.