自然偏好量表的编制。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-31 DOI:10.1177/0272989X231189494
Shawna F Bayerman, Meng Li, Adnan Syed, Laura D Scherer
{"title":"自然偏好量表的编制。","authors":"Shawna F Bayerman, Meng Li, Adnan Syed, Laura D Scherer","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231189494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Naturalness preference can influence important health decisions. However, the literature lacks a reliable way to measure individual differences in naturalness preferences. We fill this gap by designing and validating a scale to measure individual differences in naturalness preference.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted 3 studies among Amazon Mechanical Turk participants. In study 1 (<i>N</i> = 451), we created scale items through an iterative process that measured naturalness preference in hypothesized domains. We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify items that assess the naturalness preference construct. In study 2 (<i>N</i> = 448), we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and tests of criterion, discriminant, convergent, and incremental validity. In study 3 (<i>N</i> = 607), we confirmed test-retest reliability of the scale and performed additional validity tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EFA revealed 3 correlated factors consistent with naturalness preference in medicine, food, and household products. The CFA confirmed the 3-factor structure and led to the decision to drop reverse-coded items. The finalized Naturalness Preference Scale (NPS) consists of 20 items and 3 subscales: NPS-medicine, NPS-food, and NPS-household products. The NPS demonstrated good test-retest reliability, and subscales had good validity in their respective domains. The NPS-medicine subscale was predictive of the uptake of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine (<i>r</i> = -0.45) and belief in unproven natural COVID remedies and treatments (<i>r</i> = 0.29).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The NPS will allow researchers to better assess individual differences in naturalness preference and how they influence decision making and health behaviors.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>This research created and validated a scale to measure individual differences in naturalness preference in 3 domains: medicine, food, and household products.This study confirms that the strength of the naturalness preference differs in different domains.An important and timely finding is that higher scores in the naturalness preference medical subscale are associated with belief in COVID-19 misinformation and reluctance toward COVID-19 vaccination.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"821-834"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of a Naturalness Preference Scale.\",\"authors\":\"Shawna F Bayerman, Meng Li, Adnan Syed, Laura D Scherer\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0272989X231189494\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Naturalness preference can influence important health decisions. However, the literature lacks a reliable way to measure individual differences in naturalness preferences. We fill this gap by designing and validating a scale to measure individual differences in naturalness preference.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted 3 studies among Amazon Mechanical Turk participants. In study 1 (<i>N</i> = 451), we created scale items through an iterative process that measured naturalness preference in hypothesized domains. We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify items that assess the naturalness preference construct. In study 2 (<i>N</i> = 448), we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and tests of criterion, discriminant, convergent, and incremental validity. In study 3 (<i>N</i> = 607), we confirmed test-retest reliability of the scale and performed additional validity tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EFA revealed 3 correlated factors consistent with naturalness preference in medicine, food, and household products. The CFA confirmed the 3-factor structure and led to the decision to drop reverse-coded items. The finalized Naturalness Preference Scale (NPS) consists of 20 items and 3 subscales: NPS-medicine, NPS-food, and NPS-household products. The NPS demonstrated good test-retest reliability, and subscales had good validity in their respective domains. The NPS-medicine subscale was predictive of the uptake of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine (<i>r</i> = -0.45) and belief in unproven natural COVID remedies and treatments (<i>r</i> = 0.29).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The NPS will allow researchers to better assess individual differences in naturalness preference and how they influence decision making and health behaviors.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>This research created and validated a scale to measure individual differences in naturalness preference in 3 domains: medicine, food, and household products.This study confirms that the strength of the naturalness preference differs in different domains.An important and timely finding is that higher scores in the naturalness preference medical subscale are associated with belief in COVID-19 misinformation and reluctance toward COVID-19 vaccination.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"821-834\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231189494\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231189494","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:自然偏好可以影响重要的健康决策。然而,文献缺乏一种可靠的方法来衡量自然偏好的个体差异。我们通过设计和验证一个量表来衡量自然偏好的个体差异,从而填补了这一空白。方法:我们在Amazon Mechanical Turk参与者中进行了3项研究。在研究1(N = 451),我们通过一个迭代过程创建了量表项目,该过程测量了假设领域中的自然度偏好。我们进行了探索性因素分析(EFA),以确定评估自然偏好结构的项目。在研究2中(N = 448),我们进行了验证性因素分析(CFA)和标准、判别、收敛和增量有效性测试。在研究3(N = 607),我们确认了量表的重测可靠性,并进行了额外的有效性测试。结果:在药品、食品和家居用品方面,EFA揭示了3个与自然偏好一致的相关因素。CFA确认了三因素结构,并决定放弃反向编码项目。最终确定的自然偏好量表(NPS)由20个项目和3个分量表组成:NPS药物、NPS食品和NPS家用产品。NPS表现出良好的重测可靠性,分量表在各自领域具有良好的有效性。NPS-medicine分量表预测了假设的新冠肺炎疫苗的摄入(r = -0.45)和对未经证实的天然新冠肺炎治疗方法的信念(r = 0.29)。结论:NPS将使研究人员能够更好地评估自然偏好的个体差异,以及它们如何影响决策和健康行为。亮点:这项研究创建并验证了一个量表,用于衡量三个领域的自然偏好的个体差异:医学、食品和家用产品。这项研究证实,自然性偏好的强度在不同领域有所不同。一个重要而及时的发现是,自然偏好医学分量表得分较高与相信新冠肺炎错误信息和不愿意接种新冠肺炎疫苗有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development of a Naturalness Preference Scale.

Objective: Naturalness preference can influence important health decisions. However, the literature lacks a reliable way to measure individual differences in naturalness preferences. We fill this gap by designing and validating a scale to measure individual differences in naturalness preference.

Methods: We conducted 3 studies among Amazon Mechanical Turk participants. In study 1 (N = 451), we created scale items through an iterative process that measured naturalness preference in hypothesized domains. We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify items that assess the naturalness preference construct. In study 2 (N = 448), we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and tests of criterion, discriminant, convergent, and incremental validity. In study 3 (N = 607), we confirmed test-retest reliability of the scale and performed additional validity tests.

Results: EFA revealed 3 correlated factors consistent with naturalness preference in medicine, food, and household products. The CFA confirmed the 3-factor structure and led to the decision to drop reverse-coded items. The finalized Naturalness Preference Scale (NPS) consists of 20 items and 3 subscales: NPS-medicine, NPS-food, and NPS-household products. The NPS demonstrated good test-retest reliability, and subscales had good validity in their respective domains. The NPS-medicine subscale was predictive of the uptake of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine (r = -0.45) and belief in unproven natural COVID remedies and treatments (r = 0.29).

Conclusions: The NPS will allow researchers to better assess individual differences in naturalness preference and how they influence decision making and health behaviors.

Highlights: This research created and validated a scale to measure individual differences in naturalness preference in 3 domains: medicine, food, and household products.This study confirms that the strength of the naturalness preference differs in different domains.An important and timely finding is that higher scores in the naturalness preference medical subscale are associated with belief in COVID-19 misinformation and reluctance toward COVID-19 vaccination.

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
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
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