虚幻健康信念量表:利用探索性结构方程模型和多维Rasch分析进行验证。

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Frontiers in Psychology Pub Date : 2025-05-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1491759
Andrew Denovan, Neil Dagnall, Kenneth Graham Drinkwater
{"title":"虚幻健康信念量表:利用探索性结构方程模型和多维Rasch分析进行验证。","authors":"Andrew Denovan, Neil Dagnall, Kenneth Graham Drinkwater","doi":"10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1491759","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Illusory Health Beliefs Scale (IHBS) is a multidimensional instrument that evaluates endorsement of scientifically unsubstantiated, illusory health-oriented notions. These beliefs are important because they potentially influence attitudes/actions to the detriment of personal wellbeing/health. Preceding research examining IHBS item performance at the unidimensional subscale level identified five dimensions (Religious/Spiritual, Superstition, Precognitive, Health Myths, Skepticism), and an independent Health Pseudoscience subscale. The present paper extended latent structure analysis by employing exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and multidimensional Rasch analysis. Concurrently, statistical appraisal tested convergent validity via relationships with related health-based constructs (i.e., health locus of control, HLC and beliefs about complementary and alternative medicine, CAM). A sample of 2,138 completed the IHBS (1,016 males, 1,113 females, seven non-binary, two preferred not to disclose). Following minor scale modification, ESEM reported good data-fit for a six-factor model. With the exception of Skepticism, which was negatively associated, IHBS subfactors correlated positively with HLC and CAM. These outcomes supported the supposition that the IHBS measures perceived and illusory health control. Rasch analysis designated sufficient multidimensionality and satisfactory subscale functioning. Strong associations indicated that IHBS dimensions assessed related but discrete aspects of illusory health beliefs. High associations among paranormal-based dimensions (Religious/Spiritual, Superstition, and Precognitive) suggested the need for greater content separation. Moreover, the poor reliability of Skepticism designated the need to develop a more efficacious assessment of this dimension.</p>","PeriodicalId":12525,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Psychology","volume":"16 ","pages":"1491759"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12092366/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Illusory Health Beliefs Scale: validation using exploratory structural equation modeling and multidimensional Rasch analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Denovan, Neil Dagnall, Kenneth Graham Drinkwater\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1491759\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Illusory Health Beliefs Scale (IHBS) is a multidimensional instrument that evaluates endorsement of scientifically unsubstantiated, illusory health-oriented notions. These beliefs are important because they potentially influence attitudes/actions to the detriment of personal wellbeing/health. Preceding research examining IHBS item performance at the unidimensional subscale level identified five dimensions (Religious/Spiritual, Superstition, Precognitive, Health Myths, Skepticism), and an independent Health Pseudoscience subscale. The present paper extended latent structure analysis by employing exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and multidimensional Rasch analysis. Concurrently, statistical appraisal tested convergent validity via relationships with related health-based constructs (i.e., health locus of control, HLC and beliefs about complementary and alternative medicine, CAM). A sample of 2,138 completed the IHBS (1,016 males, 1,113 females, seven non-binary, two preferred not to disclose). Following minor scale modification, ESEM reported good data-fit for a six-factor model. With the exception of Skepticism, which was negatively associated, IHBS subfactors correlated positively with HLC and CAM. These outcomes supported the supposition that the IHBS measures perceived and illusory health control. Rasch analysis designated sufficient multidimensionality and satisfactory subscale functioning. Strong associations indicated that IHBS dimensions assessed related but discrete aspects of illusory health beliefs. High associations among paranormal-based dimensions (Religious/Spiritual, Superstition, and Precognitive) suggested the need for greater content separation. Moreover, the poor reliability of Skepticism designated the need to develop a more efficacious assessment of this dimension.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12525,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Psychology\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"1491759\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12092366/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1491759\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1491759","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虚幻健康信念量表(IHBS)是一种多维工具,用于评估对科学上未经证实的虚幻健康观念的认可。这些信念很重要,因为它们可能影响态度/行动,损害个人福祉/健康。先前的研究在单维度子量表水平上考察了IHBS项目的表现,确定了五个维度(宗教/精神、迷信、预知、健康神话、怀疑主义)和一个独立的健康伪科学子量表。本文采用探索性结构方程模型(ESEM)和多维拉希分析对潜在结构分析进行了扩展。同时,统计评估通过与相关健康基础结构(即健康控制点,HLC和关于补充和替代医学的信念,CAM)的关系来检验收敛效度。2138人完成了IHBS(1016名男性,1113名女性,7名非二元性别,2名不愿透露)。在小规模修改后,ESEM报告了六因子模型的良好数据拟合。除了怀疑论与hbs亚因子负相关外,IHBS亚因子与HLC和CAM正相关。这些结果支持了IHBS测量感知和虚幻健康控制的假设。Rasch分析指出了足够的多维度和令人满意的子尺度功能。强关联表明,IHBS维度评估了虚幻健康信念的相关但离散的方面。基于超自然现象的维度(宗教/精神,迷信和预知)之间的高度关联表明需要更大的内容分离。此外,怀疑论的可靠性较差,表明需要对这一维度进行更有效的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Illusory Health Beliefs Scale: validation using exploratory structural equation modeling and multidimensional Rasch analysis.

The Illusory Health Beliefs Scale (IHBS) is a multidimensional instrument that evaluates endorsement of scientifically unsubstantiated, illusory health-oriented notions. These beliefs are important because they potentially influence attitudes/actions to the detriment of personal wellbeing/health. Preceding research examining IHBS item performance at the unidimensional subscale level identified five dimensions (Religious/Spiritual, Superstition, Precognitive, Health Myths, Skepticism), and an independent Health Pseudoscience subscale. The present paper extended latent structure analysis by employing exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and multidimensional Rasch analysis. Concurrently, statistical appraisal tested convergent validity via relationships with related health-based constructs (i.e., health locus of control, HLC and beliefs about complementary and alternative medicine, CAM). A sample of 2,138 completed the IHBS (1,016 males, 1,113 females, seven non-binary, two preferred not to disclose). Following minor scale modification, ESEM reported good data-fit for a six-factor model. With the exception of Skepticism, which was negatively associated, IHBS subfactors correlated positively with HLC and CAM. These outcomes supported the supposition that the IHBS measures perceived and illusory health control. Rasch analysis designated sufficient multidimensionality and satisfactory subscale functioning. Strong associations indicated that IHBS dimensions assessed related but discrete aspects of illusory health beliefs. High associations among paranormal-based dimensions (Religious/Spiritual, Superstition, and Precognitive) suggested the need for greater content separation. Moreover, the poor reliability of Skepticism designated the need to develop a more efficacious assessment of this dimension.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Psychology
Frontiers in Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
13.20%
发文量
7396
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Psychology is the largest journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research across the psychological sciences, from clinical research to cognitive science, from perception to consciousness, from imaging studies to human factors, and from animal cognition to social psychology. Field Chief Editor Axel Cleeremans at the Free University of Brussels is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. The journal publishes the best research across the entire field of psychology. Today, psychological science is becoming increasingly important at all levels of society, from the treatment of clinical disorders to our basic understanding of how the mind works. It is highly interdisciplinary, borrowing questions from philosophy, methods from neuroscience and insights from clinical practice - all in the goal of furthering our grasp of human nature and society, as well as our ability to develop new intervention methods.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信