Online Misinformation Susceptibility Scale: An adapted version for health-related misinformation
Katsiroumpa, A.; Konstantakopoulou, O.; Gallos, P.; Moisoglou, I.; Mangoulia, P.; Galani, O.; Tsiachri, M.; Galanis, P. A.
Show abstract
OBJECTIVETo examine the validity and reliability of the adapted version of the Online Misinformation Susceptibility Scale (OMISS) for health-related misinformation. METHODWe examined the reliability of the Health-Related Online Misinformation Susceptibility Scale (HR-OMISS) by calculating Cronbach alpha and McDonald Omega. We examined the construct validity of the HR-OMISS by performing confirmatory factor analysis. We examined the concurrent validity of the HR-OMISS using the Trust in Scientists Scale, the single-item scientists confidence scale, the Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire (CMQ), and the single item conspiracy belief. We examined known-groups validity of the HR-OMISS by comparing healthcare workers with a MSc diploma versus those without one. RESULTSWe found that the HR-OMISS had very good reliability since Cronbach coefficient alpha 0.920 and McDonald Omega was 0.922. We found that the adapted version of the OMISS for health-related misinformation (HR-OMISS) had a one-factor structure as the original version (OMISS). Concurrent validity of the HR-OMISS was very good since we found statistically significant negative correlation between the HR-OMISS and the Trust in Scientists Scale (r = -0.330, p-value < 0.001), and the single-item scientists confidence scale (r = -0.258, p-value < 0.001). Moreover, we found a positive correlation between the HR-OMISS and the CMQ (r = 0.118, p-value = 0.072) and the single item conspiracy belief (r = 0.074, p-value = 0.260). The HR-OMISS showed known-groups validity since the mean score for healthcare workers with a MSc diploma (25.6) was lower than those without a MSc diploma (29.6), (p-value = 0.002). CONCLUSIONSThe HR-OMISS is a valid and reliable tool to measure levels of health-related online misinformation susceptibility.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Socio-educational Impact and Psychological Distress of Medical Students amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Japanese Cross-Sectional Survey 93%
- Assessing ChatGPT’s Mastery of Bloom’s Taxonomy using psychosomatic medicine exam questions 93%
- Health indicators as a measure of individual health status: public perspectives 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and psychometric properties of the Japanese Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Clinician & Group Survey (CG-CAHPS) 94%
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice related to the COVID-19 pandemic among undergraduate medical students in Indonesia: a nationwide cross-sectional study 93%
- Who is (Not) Complying with the Social Distancing Directive and Why? Testing a General Framework of Compliance with Multiple Measures of Social Distancing 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Examining Australian's beliefs, misconceptions, and sources of information for COVID-19: A national online survey 93%
- Online information on face masks in Italian and English websites: deficiencies and responsibilities of search engines 93%
- The negative consequences of failing to communicate uncertainties during a pandemic: The case of COVID-19 vaccines 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Validity of the Parsley Symptom Index: an e-PROM designed for Telehealth 94%
- Individual factors influencing public’s perceptions about the importance of COVID-19 immunity certificates: a cross-sectional online questionnaire survey in the UK 93%
- (Mis) Communicating The Gut Microbiome: A Cross-Sectional Assessment of Social Media Video Content 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Can co-designed educational interventions help consumers think critically about asking ChatGPT health questions? Results from a randomised-controlled trial 93%
- Digital Health Tools for the Passive Monitoring of Depression: A Systematic Review of Methods 92%
- Digital Health Interventions in Palliative Care: A Systematic Meta-Review and Evidence Synthesis 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.