Conspiracy beliefs about vaccination: Questionnaire validation

Authors

  • Irina L. Uglanova National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, 20, ul. Myasnitskaya, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation
  • Alexandra M. Mikhaylova National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, 20, ul. Myasnitskaya, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation
  • Tatyana V. Belskaya National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, 20, ul. Myasnitskaya, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation
  • Anastasia V. Getman National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, 20, ul. Myasnitskaya, Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu12.2021.102

Abstract

Vaccination in light of the COVID-19 pandemic is a hot topic in scientific and popular circles. The article presents the adaptation and validation of the questionnaire measuring the propensity to believe in conspiracy theories regarding vaccination (Vaccine Conspiracy Beliefs Scale). The questionnaire consists of 7 statements with 7 response categories in the Likert scale. The work includes translation and adaptation for the Russian sample of the Englishlanguage version of the questionnaire, including forward and backward translation as well as the use of cognitive laboratories. The translation was carried out by three experts, followed by the finalization of the questionnaire version for quantitative analysis. The cognitive laboratory
tested how clear the translation and the investigated construct were for respondents. Data analysis was conducted within the framework of modern testing theory using models from Rasch modeling. The sample consisted of 308 students from Russian universities (average age 20.6 years; SD = 3.9). The quantitative analysis showed satisfactory psychometric characteristics of the questionnaire. A deeper analysis revealed that the sample is divided into two latent classes according to the response style of the test takers. The response style is a specific characteristic of the test-taker, which makes it possible to closer examine the reasons why the testtaker has chosen one or another response option. The study of response styles is an underrepresented area in domestic research and the article contributes to the development of this area while also emphasizing the need to study response styles when using questionnaires. Overall, the article details the methodology for validating measurement tools in the social sciences.

Keywords:

attitude towards vaccination, conspiracy theory, response styles, psychometrics, Likert scale

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Литература

Stein R. A. The golden age of anti-vaccine conspiracies // Germs. 2017. Vol. 7, no. 4. P. 168. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2017.1122

Shapiro G. K. et al. Validation of the vaccine conspiracy beliefs scale // Papillomavirus research. 2016. Vol. 2. P. 167–172.

Austin E. J., Deary I. J., Egan V. Individual differences in response scale use: Mixed Rasch modelling of responses to NEO-FFI items // Personality and individual differences. 2006. Vol. 40, no. 6. P. 1235–1245.

Van Prooijen J. W., Douglas K. M. Belief in Conspiracy Theories: Basic Principles of an Emerging Research Domain // European J. of Social Psychology. 2018. Vol. 48, no. 7. P. 897–908.

Прилуцкий А. М. Коронавирусная инфекция и религиозные дискурсы медицинской конспирологии // Известия Иркутского государственного университета. Политология. Религиоведение. 2020. Т. 33. С. 108–114. https://doi.org/10.26516/2073-3380.2020.33.108

Jolley D., Douglas K. M. The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions // PloS one. 2014. Vol. 9, no. 2. P. e89177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089177

Антонова Н. А., Ерицян К. Ю. Систематический обзор эмпирических исследований факторов отказа от вакцинации // Гигиена и санитария. 2018. Т. 97, № 7. С. 664–670. http://dx.doi.org/10.18821/0016-9900-2018-97-7-664-670

Douglas K. M., Sutton R. M., Cichocka A. The psychology of conspiracy theories // Current directions in psychological science. 2017. Vol. 26. no. 6. P. 538–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261

Hornsey M. J., Harris E. A., Fielding K. S. The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: A 24-nation investigation // Health Psychology. 2018. Vol. 37, no. 4. P. 307.

Goreis A., Voracek M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological research on conspiracy beliefs: Field characteristics, measurement instruments, and associations with personality traits // Frontiers in Psychology. 2019. Vol. 10. P. 205. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00205

Дмитриев А. В. и др. Приверженность вакцинации различных слоев населения: результаты анкетирования // Детские инфекции. 2019. Т. 18, № 4. С. 32–37. https://doi.org/10.22627/2072-8107-2019-18-4-32-37

Кухтевич Е. В. и др. Иммунопрофилактика: позитивные и негативные тенденции // Инфекционные болезни: Новости. Мнения. Обучение. 2018. Т. 7, № 2 (25). С. 84–91. https://doi.org/10.24411/2305-3496-2018-12010

Мац А. Н., Чепрасова Е. В. Антипрививочный скепсис как социально-психологический феномен // Эпидемиология и вакцинопрофилактика. 2012. № 5 (78). С. 111–115.

Таточенко В. К., Гольдштейн А. В. Вакцина против кори — паротита — краснухи и аутизм: научная безграмотность и безответственность средств массовой информации угрожает здоровью общества // Педиатрическая фармакология. 2010. Т. 7, № 2. C. 33–35.

Jamison A. M. et al. Not just conspiracy theories: Vaccine opponents and proponents add to the COVID-19 ‘infodemic’ on Twitter // Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. 2020. Vol. 1. URL: https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/not-just-conspiracy-theories-vaccine-opponents-and-proponents-add-to-the-covid-19-infodemic-on-twitter/ (дата обращения: 26.03.2021).

Johnson N. F. et al. The online competition between pro-and anti-vaccination views // Nature. 2020. Vol. 582. P. 230–233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1

Bertin P., Nera K., Delouvée S. Conspiracy Beliefs, Rejection of Vaccination, and Support for hydroxychloroquine: A Conceptual Replication-Extension in the COVID-19 Pandemic Context // Frontiers in psychology. 2020. Vol. 11. Article 565128. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.565128

Калюжная Т. А. и др. Преодоление «антипрививочного скепсиса»: поиски решения выхода из сложившейся ситуации // Педиатрическая фармакология. 2018. Т. 15, № 2. С. 141–148. https://doi.org/10.15690/pf.v15i2.1871

Яшина М. Н., Власова А. А. Антипрививочный скепсис у родителей // Социальные аспекты здоровья населения [сетевое издание]. 2020. № 66 (1). С. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.21045/2071-5021-2020-66-1-10

Кригер Е. А. и др. Отношение родителей к вакцинации детей и факторы, связанные с отказом от прививок // Педиатрия. Журнал им. Г. Н. Сперанского. 2016. Т. 95, № 2. C. 91–95.

Swami V. et al. An examination of the factorial and convergent validity of four measures of conspiracist ideation, with recommendations for researchers // PloS one. 2017. Vol. 12, no. 2. P.e0172617. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172617

Gregoire J. ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests // International Journal of Testing. 2018. Vol. 18, no. 2. P. 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2017.1398166

Zucker S., Sassman C., Case B. J. Cognitive labs, technical report. Pearson, 2004. URL: http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/tmrs_rg/CognitiveLabs.pdf (дата обращения: 20.04.2020).

Карданова Е. Ю. Преимущества современной теории тестирования по сравнению с классической теорией тестирования // Вопросы тестирования в образовании. 2004. № 10. URL: https://www.hse.ru/data/2010/12/17/1208292622/%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%2020.12.2010.doc (дата обращения: 26.03.2021).

Карданова Е. Ю. Моделирование и параметризация тестов: основы теории и приложения. М.: Федеральный центр тестирования, 2008.

Антипкина И. В. Анализ опросника дошкольной родительской вовлеченности с использованием рейтинговой модели Раша // Современная зарубежная психология. 2018. Т. 7, № 3. С. 75–86. https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2018070307

Andersen E. B. The rating scale model // Handbook of modern item response theory / eds W. J. van der Linden, R. K. Hambleton. New York: Springer, 1997. P. 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2691-6_4

Mead R. A Rasch primer: The measurement theory of Georg Rasch // Psychometrics services research memorandum. Vol. 1. Maple Grove, MN: Data Recognition Corporation, 2008.

Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories // Psychometrika. 1978. Vol. 43, no. 4. P. 561–573.

Adams R. J., Wu M. L., Wilson M. The Rasch rating model and the disordered threshold controversy // Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2012. Vol. 72, no. 4. P. 547–573.

Wright B. D. Reasonable mean-square fit values // Rasch measurement transactions. 1996. Vol. 2. P. 370.

Wolfe E. W., Dobria L. Applications of the multifaceted Rasch model // Best practices in quantitative methods. Clemson: Jason Osborn, 2008. P. 71–85. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412995627.d7

Rost J. Rasch models in latent classes: An integration of two approaches to item analysis // Applied Psychological Measurement. 1990. Vol. 14, no. 3. P. 271–282.

Willse J. T. Mixture Rasch models with joint maximum likelihood estimation // Educational and psychological measurement. 2011. Vol. 71, no. 1. P. 5–19.

Wetzel E., Carstensen C. H., Böhnke J. R. Consistency of extreme response style and non-extreme response style across traits // Journal of Research in Personality. 2013. Vol. 47, no. 2. P. 178–189.

Rost J., Carstensen C., Davier M., von. Applying the mixed Rasch model to personality questionnaires // Applications of latent trait and latent class models in the social sciences. 1997. P. 324–332.

Van Vaerenbergh Y., Thomas T. D. Response styles in survey research: A literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies // International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2013. Vol. 25, no. 2. P. 195–217.

Chen W. H. et al. Is Rasch model analysis applicable in small sample size pilot studies for assessing item characteristics? An example using PROMIS pain behavior item bank data // Quality of life research. 2014. Vol. 23, no. 2. P. 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0487-5


References

Stein R. A. The golden age of anti-vaccine conspiracies. Germs, 2017, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 168. https://doi.org/10.18683/germs.2017.1122

Shapiro G. K. et al. Validation of the vaccine conspiracy beliefs scale. Papillomavirus research, 2016, vol. 2, pp. 167–172.

Austin E. J., Deary I. J., Egan V. Individual differences in response scale use: Mixed Rasch modelling of responses to NEO-FFI items. Personality and individual differences, 2006, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1235–1245.

Van Prooijen J. W., Douglas K. M. Belief in Conspiracy Theories: Basic Principles of an Emerging Research Domain. European J. Of Social Psychology, 2018, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 897–908.

Prilutskii A. M. Coronavirus infection and religious discourses of medical conspiracy. Izvestiia Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Politologiia. Religiovedenie, 2020, vol. 33, pp. 108–114. https://doi.org/10.26516/2073-3380.2020.33.108 (In Russian)

Jolley D., Douglas K. M. The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PloS one, 2014, vol. 9, no. 2, p. e89177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089177

Antonova N. A., Eritsian K. Iu. A systematic review of empirical research of factors of vaccination refusal. Gigiena i sanitariia, 2018, vol. 97, no. 7, pp. 664–670. http://dx.doi.org/10.18821/0016-9900-2018-97-7-664-670 (In Russian)

Douglas K. M., Sutton R. M., Cichocka A. The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current directions in psychological science, 2017, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 538–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261

Hornsey M. J., Harris E. A., Fielding K. S. The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: A 24-nation investigation. Health Psychology, 2018, vol. 37, no. 4, p. 307.

Goreis A., Voracek M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological research on conspiracy beliefs: Field characteristics, measurement instruments, and associations with personality traits. Frontiers in Psychology, 2019, vol. 10, p. 205. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00205

Dmitriev A. V. et al. Adherence to vaccination of various segments of the population: the results of the survey. Detskie infektsii, 2019, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 32–37. https://doi.org/10.22627/2072-8107-2019-18-4-32-37 (In Russian)

Kukhtevich E. V. et al. Immunoprophylaxis: positive and negative trends. Infektsionnye bolezni: Novosti. Mneniia. Obuchenie, 2018, vol. 7, no. 2 (25), pp. 84–91. https://doi.org/10.24411/2305-3496-2018-12010 (In Russian)

Mats A. N., Cheprasova E. V. Anti-vaccine skepticism as a socio-psychological phenomenon. Epidemiologiia i vaktsinoprofilaktika, 2012, no. 5 (78), pp. 111–115. (In Russian)

Tatochenko V. K., Gol’dshtein A. V. Vaccine against measles-mumps-rubella and autism: scientific ignorance and irresponsibility of the media threaten the health of society. Pediatricheskaia farmakologiia, 2010, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 33–35. (In Russian)

Jamison A. M. et al. Not just conspiracy theories: Vaccine opponents and proponents add to the COVID-19 ‘infodemic’ on Twitter. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 2020, vol. 1, no. 3. Available at: https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/not-just-conspiracy-theories-vaccine-opponentsand-pro-ponents-add-to-the-covid-19-infodemic-on-twitter/ (accessed: 26.03.2021).

Johnson N. F. et al. The online competition between pro-and anti-vaccination views. Nature, 2020, vol. 582(7811), pp. 230–233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1

Bertin P., Nera K., Delouvée S. Conspiracy Beliefs, Rejection of Vaccination, and Support for hydroxychloroquine: A Conceptual Replication-Extension in the COVID-19 Pandemic Context. Frontiers in psychology, 2020, vol. 11, p. 2471. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.565128

Kaliuzhnaia T. A. et al. Overcoming “anti-vaccination skepticism”: searching for a solution to the current situation. Pediatricheskaia farmakologiia, 2018, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 141–148. https://doi.org/10.15690/pf.v15i2.1871 (In Russian)

Iashina M. N., Vlasova A. A. Anti-vaccine skepticism in parents. Social aspects of population health. Sotsial’nye aspekty zdorov’ia naseleniia, 2020, vol. 66 (1), p. 10. https://doi.org/10.21045/2071-5021-2020-66-1-10 (In Russian)

Kriger E. A. et al. The attitude of parents to vaccination of children and factors associated with refusal of vaccinations. Pediatriia. Zhurnal im. G. N. Speranskogo, 2016, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 91–95.

Swami V. et al. An examination of the factorial and convergent validity of four measures of conspiracist ideation, with recommendations for researchers. PloS one, 2017, vol. 12, no. 2, p. e0172617. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172617

Gregoire J. ITC guidelines for translating and adapting tests. International Journal of Testing, 2018, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 101–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2017.1398166

Zucker S., Sassman C., Case B. J. Cognitive labs, technical report. Pearson, 2004. Available at: http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/tmrs_rg/CognitiveLabs.pdf (assessed: 20.04.2020).

Kardanova E. Yu. Advantages of IRT in comparison with CTT. Voprosy testirovaniya v obrazovanii, 2004, no. 10. Available at: https://www.hse.ru/data/2010/12/17/1208292622/%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%20%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F%20%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%2020.12.2010.doc (accessed: 26.03.2021). (In Russian)

Kardanova E. Yu. Modelling and test parameterization; theory and enclosures. Moscow, Federal’nyi tsentr testirovaniya Publ., 2008. (In Russian)

Antipkina I. V. Analysis of the questionnaire of parental involvement with rating Rasch model. Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya, 2018, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 75–86. https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2018070307 (In Russian)

Andersen E. B. The rating scale model. Handbook of modern item response theory, eds. W. J. van der Linden, R. K. Hambleton. New York, Springer, 1997, pp. 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2691-6_4

Mead R. A Rasch primer: The measurement theory of Georg Rasch. Psychometrics services research memorandum, Maple Grove, vol. 1. MN: Data Recognition Corporation, 2008.

Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 1978, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 561–573.

Adams R. J., Wu M. L., Wilson M. The Rasch rating model and the disordered threshold controversy. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2012, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 547–573.

Wright B. D. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch measurement transactions, 1996, vol. 2, p. 370.

Wolfe E. W., Dobria L. Applications of the multifaceted Rasch model. Best practices in quantitative methods, 2008, pp. 71–85. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412995627.d7

Rost J. Rasch models in latent classes: An integration of two approaches to item analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1990, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 271–282.

Willse J. T. Mixture Rasch models with joint maximum likelihood estimation. Educational and psychological measurement, 2011, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 5–19.

Wetzel E., Carstensen C. H., Böhnke J. R. Consistency of extreme response style and non-extreme response style across traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 2013, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 178–189.

Rost J., Carstensen C., von Davier M. Applying the mixed Rasch model to personality questionnaires. Applications of latent trait and latent class models in the social sciences, 1997, pp. 324–332.

Van Vaerenbergh Y., Thomas T. D. Response styles in survey research: A literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2013, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 195–217.

Chen W. H. et al. Is Rasch model analysis applicable in small sample size pilot studies for assessing item characteristics? An example using PROMIS pain behavior item bank data. Quality of life research, 2014, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0487-5

Downloads

Published

2021-05-27

How to Cite

Uglanova, I. L. ., Mikhaylova, A. M. ., Belskaya, T. V. ., & Getman, A. V. . (2021). Conspiracy beliefs about vaccination: Questionnaire validation. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Sociology, 14(1), 14–32. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu12.2021.102

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 1 (2021): Vestnik of Saint-Petersburg University. Sociology

Section

Vectors and trajectories of sociological theory

License

Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Sociology" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.