Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Psychology, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom
  • 2 Department of Psychology, University of Westminster, London, United Kingdom
  • 3 Department of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
  • 4 Department of Basic Psychological Research and Research Methods, School of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • 5 Research Methods, Assessment, and iScience, Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
PLoS One, 2017;12(2):e0172617.
PMID: 28231266 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172617

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.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.