证据与建议推理(EvA)量表:量表开发与验证。

IF 2.8 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of personality assessment Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-25 DOI:10.1080/00223891.2023.2297266
Hwayong Shin, Priti Shah, Stephanie D Preston
{"title":"证据与建议推理(EvA)量表:量表开发与验证。","authors":"Hwayong Shin, Priti Shah, Stephanie D Preston","doi":"10.1080/00223891.2023.2297266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Our well-being can improve when people heed evidence rather than simply follow familiar or charismatic advisors who neglect evidence. We developed the Reasoning through Evidence versus Advice (EvA) scale to measure individual differences in reasoning through evidence like science and statistics versus following advisors such as politicians and celebrities. No existing scales directly measure these tendencies; moreover, it was theoretically unknown whether they reflect a single dimension (from evidence- to advice-based) or distinct tendencies to value or distrust each. Our scale validation process included qualitative interviews and four studies that involved 1583 respondents (753 college graduates, 830 non-college graduates) in which we conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and tests of convergent validity, discriminant validity, and measurement invariance by gender and education. This process yielded a 16-item EvA scale with four dimensions: Pro-evidence, Anti-evidence, Pro-advice, and Anti-advice. In assessing criterion validity, these tendencies identified individual differences in important, real-world attitudes and behaviors, including susceptibility to health misinformation, adherence to CDC guidelines on social distancing, confidence in the COVID vaccine, science curiosity, and religiosity. The EvA scale extends our understanding of individual differences in reasoning tendencies that shape critical attitudes, decisions, and behaviors and can help promote informed decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":16707,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality assessment","volume":" ","pages":"681-695"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Reasoning through Evidence versus Advice (EvA) Scale: Scale Development and Validation.\",\"authors\":\"Hwayong Shin, Priti Shah, Stephanie D Preston\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00223891.2023.2297266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Our well-being can improve when people heed evidence rather than simply follow familiar or charismatic advisors who neglect evidence. We developed the Reasoning through Evidence versus Advice (EvA) scale to measure individual differences in reasoning through evidence like science and statistics versus following advisors such as politicians and celebrities. No existing scales directly measure these tendencies; moreover, it was theoretically unknown whether they reflect a single dimension (from evidence- to advice-based) or distinct tendencies to value or distrust each. Our scale validation process included qualitative interviews and four studies that involved 1583 respondents (753 college graduates, 830 non-college graduates) in which we conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and tests of convergent validity, discriminant validity, and measurement invariance by gender and education. This process yielded a 16-item EvA scale with four dimensions: Pro-evidence, Anti-evidence, Pro-advice, and Anti-advice. In assessing criterion validity, these tendencies identified individual differences in important, real-world attitudes and behaviors, including susceptibility to health misinformation, adherence to CDC guidelines on social distancing, confidence in the COVID vaccine, science curiosity, and religiosity. The EvA scale extends our understanding of individual differences in reasoning tendencies that shape critical attitudes, decisions, and behaviors and can help promote informed decisions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of personality assessment\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"681-695\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of personality assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2023.2297266\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2023.2297266","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如果人们重视证据,而不是简单地追随熟悉的或有魅力的顾问,忽视证据,我们的幸福感就会提高。我们开发了 "通过证据与建议进行推理 "量表(EvA),以测量通过科学和统计等证据进行推理与追随政客和名人等顾问进行推理的个体差异。现有的量表无法直接测量这些倾向;此外,理论上也不知道它们反映的是单一维度(从基于证据到基于建议)还是各自不同的重视或不信任倾向。我们的量表验证过程包括定性访谈和四项研究,共涉及 1583 名受访者(753 名大学毕业生和 830 名非大学毕业生),在这些研究中,我们进行了探索性和确认性因子分析,并测试了收敛效度、判别效度以及不同性别和教育程度的测量不变性。这一过程产生了一个包含四个维度的 16 项 EvA 量表:支持证据、反对证据、支持建议和反对建议。在评估标准有效性时,这些倾向确定了个体在重要的现实世界态度和行为中的差异,包括对健康误导信息的易感性、遵守疾病预防控制中心关于社会疏远的指导方针、对 COVID 疫苗的信心、科学好奇心和宗教信仰。EvA 量表扩展了我们对推理倾向个体差异的理解,这些推理倾向决定了关键的态度、决策和行为,有助于促进做出明智的决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Reasoning through Evidence versus Advice (EvA) Scale: Scale Development and Validation.

Our well-being can improve when people heed evidence rather than simply follow familiar or charismatic advisors who neglect evidence. We developed the Reasoning through Evidence versus Advice (EvA) scale to measure individual differences in reasoning through evidence like science and statistics versus following advisors such as politicians and celebrities. No existing scales directly measure these tendencies; moreover, it was theoretically unknown whether they reflect a single dimension (from evidence- to advice-based) or distinct tendencies to value or distrust each. Our scale validation process included qualitative interviews and four studies that involved 1583 respondents (753 college graduates, 830 non-college graduates) in which we conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and tests of convergent validity, discriminant validity, and measurement invariance by gender and education. This process yielded a 16-item EvA scale with four dimensions: Pro-evidence, Anti-evidence, Pro-advice, and Anti-advice. In assessing criterion validity, these tendencies identified individual differences in important, real-world attitudes and behaviors, including susceptibility to health misinformation, adherence to CDC guidelines on social distancing, confidence in the COVID vaccine, science curiosity, and religiosity. The EvA scale extends our understanding of individual differences in reasoning tendencies that shape critical attitudes, decisions, and behaviors and can help promote informed decisions.

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
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
8.80%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: The Journal of Personality Assessment (JPA) primarily publishes articles dealing with the development, evaluation, refinement, and application of personality assessment methods. Desirable articles address empirical, theoretical, instructional, or professional aspects of using psychological tests, interview data, or the applied clinical assessment process. They also advance the measurement, description, or understanding of personality, psychopathology, and human behavior. JPA is broadly concerned with developing and using personality assessment methods in clinical, counseling, forensic, and health psychology settings; with the assessment process in applied clinical practice; with the assessment of people of all ages and cultures; and with both normal and abnormal personality functioning.
期刊最新文献
Trait Considerations in Clinical Practice: A Commentary Based on Gubler et al. (2024) and Lau et al. (2024). Assessment of Personality Functioning Across Immigrant Groups- Measurement Invariance and Its Association with Mental Distress in a German Population-Based Sample. Comparison of Resilience Measures in Chinese Adolescents: Based on Item Response Theory. Psychometric Evidence and Measurement Invariance by College-Going Status for the Inventory of the Dimensions of Emerging Adulthood (IDEA). Psychometric Properties of the Dutch Version of the Young Positive Schema Questionnaire (YPSQ-NL).
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1