IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0172617.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An examination of the factorial and convergent validity of four measures of conspiracist ideation, with recommendations for researchers

Author

Listed:
  • Viren Swami
  • David Barron
  • Laura Weis
  • Martin Voracek
  • Stefan Stieger
  • Adrian Furnham

Abstract

A number scales have been developed to measure conspiracist ideation, but little attention has been paid to the factorial validity of these scales. We reassessed the psychometric properties of four widely-used scales, namely the Belief in Conspiracy Theories Inventory (BCTI), the Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire (CMQ), the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale (GCBS), and the One-Item Conspiracy Measure (OICM). Eight-hundred-and-three U.S. adults completed all measures, along with measures of endorsement of 9/11 and anti-vaccination conspiracy theories. Through both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, we found that only the BCTI had acceptable factorial validity. We failed to confirm the factor structures of the CMQ and the GBCS, suggesting these measures had poor factorial validity. Indices of convergent validity were acceptable for the BCTI, but weaker for the other measures. Based on these findings, we provide suggestions for the future refinement in the measurement of conspiracist ideation.

Suggested Citation

  • Viren Swami & David Barron & Laura Weis & Martin Voracek & Stefan Stieger & Adrian Furnham, 2017. "An examination of the factorial and convergent validity of four measures of conspiracist ideation, with recommendations for researchers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-27, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0172617
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172617
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172617
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172617&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0172617?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carly Wood & David Barron & Nina Smyth, 2019. "The Current and Retrospective Intentional Nature Exposure Scales: Development and Factorial Validity," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Jack P Hughes & Alexandros Efstratiou & Sara R Komer & Lilli A Baxter & Milica Vasiljevic & Ana C Leite, 2022. "The impact of risk perceptions and belief in conspiracy theories on COVID-19 pandemic-related behaviours," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-20, February.
    3. Neophytos Georgiou & Paul Delfabbro & Ryan Balzan, 2021. "Conspiracy-Beliefs and Receptivity to Disconfirmatory Information: A Study Using the BADE Task," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440211, March.
    4. Mohammad Atari & Reza Afhami & Viren Swami, 2019. "Psychometric assessments of Persian translations of three measures of conspiracist beliefs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Janet T. Y. Leung & Daniel T. L. Shek & Chak-Man Tang, 2023. "Development and Validation of the Chinese Family Resilience Scale in Families in Hong Kong," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Kenneth Graham Drinkwater & Neil Dagnall & Andrew Denovan & Nick Neave, 2020. "Psychometric assessment of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0172617. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.