ArticleBMC psychology2026
Development and validation of a scale for measuring irrational behavior in undergraduate students' online discourse.
Article in BMC psychology, 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
Abstract
introductionThis study aims to develop a scientifically valid and effective scale for measuring irrational behavior in online discourse among undergraduate students, thereby providing a scientific basis for understanding online public opinion in universities.
methodsThe study adopted a mixed-methods design. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted, and 153 valid open-ended questionnaires were collected. The responses were coded by 5 independent coders, generating an initial item pool spanning four theoretical dimensions, which were then refined by a cross-disciplinary expert panel. In the subsequent quantitative phase, data from 500 students were used for item analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and reliability and validity assessments were then performed on a separate sample of 476 students.
resultsThe final scale comprises 28 items across four dimensions: cognitive bias, emotional sensitivity, self-regulation deficiency, and behavioral deviance. The scale demonstrated acceptable construct validity (χ²/df = 2.094; CFI = 0.934, TLI = 0.928, SRMR = 0.057, RMSEA = 0.058), and an internal consistency coefficient of 0.95. Application of the scale revealed significant differences in irrational behavior among university students of different gender, internet usage duration, and family background, whereas no significant grade-related difference was observed.
conclusionsThis newly developed scale provides preliminary psychometric support for assessing irrational behavior in undergraduate students' online discourse. Analysis using this scale may help identify at-risk subgroups in university contexts. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.