Suppr超能文献

如何区分“科学怀疑论者”和“科学狂热者”?波兰配额样本中科学观问卷得分的心理测量特性及定性解释标准。

How to distinguish a "scientoskeptic" from a "scientoenthusiast"? Psychometric properties and criteria for qualitative interpretation of the scores of the Views of Science Questionnaire in a Polish quota sample.

作者信息

Jach Łukasz

机构信息

Institute of Psychology, Department of Social Sciences, University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland.

出版信息

Curr Issues Personal Psychol. 2021 Mar 25;9(1):66-83. doi: 10.5114/cipp.2021.104596. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The main aim of this study was to develop criteria for qualitative interpretation of the scores of the Views of Science Questionnaire (VoSQ), which is a tool for measuring the level of scientistic worldview. Another goal was to verify the psychometric properties of the tool in an adequately large and demographically diverse sample.

PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

The study involved 1,119 participants aged 18 to 87 who filled in the Polish version of the VoSQ via the Internet. The obtained results were subjected to reliability analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and analyses aimed at developing criteria for the qualitative interpretation of both individual and group scores of the VoSQ scales.

RESULTS

The CFA analysis showed a satisfactory level of fit of the VoSQ factor structure containing one higher-order factor and four sub-factors. The reliability of the tool scales was also satisfactory. The obtained results showed gender and age differences, but no differences related to the level of education. This information was used to develop the percentile-based criteria for the interpretation of the individual scores and the mean and standard deviation-based criteria for qualitative interpretation of the group scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between science and its social reception is becoming an increasingly important issue. The development of criteria for the qualitative interpretation of the results of the Views of Science Questionnaire makes it possible to use it as a tool for diagnosing attitudes towards science, displayed by both individuals and groups. This knowledge may be useful in improving the effectiveness of social implementation.

摘要

背景

本研究的主要目的是制定科学观问卷(VoSQ)分数定性解释的标准,该问卷是一种用于测量科学主义世界观水平的工具。另一个目标是在足够大且人口统计学特征多样的样本中验证该工具的心理测量特性。

参与者与程序

该研究涉及1119名年龄在18至87岁之间的参与者,他们通过互联网填写了波兰语版的VoSQ。对获得的结果进行了信度分析、验证性因素分析以及旨在制定VoSQ量表个体和团体分数定性解释标准的分析。

结果

CFA分析表明,包含一个高阶因素和四个子因素的VoSQ因素结构具有令人满意的拟合度。该工具量表的信度也令人满意。获得的结果显示了性别和年龄差异,但与教育水平无关。这些信息被用于制定基于百分位数的个体分数解释标准以及基于均值和标准差的团体分数定性解释标准。

结论

科学与其社会接受度之间的关系正变得越来越重要。科学观问卷结果定性解释标准的制定使得该问卷能够作为一种工具,用于诊断个体和团体对科学的态度。这些知识可能有助于提高社会实施的有效性。

相似文献

6
Validation of the Japanese version of the scales of the attitudes toward people with epilepsy (SAPE-J).
Epilepsia Open. 2024 Oct;9(5):1910-1921. doi: 10.1002/epi4.13040. Epub 2024 Aug 31.
8
Impact of summer programmes on the outcomes of disadvantaged or 'at risk' young people: A systematic review.
Campbell Syst Rev. 2024 Jun 13;20(2):e1406. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1406. eCollection 2024 Jun.
10
[Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) - Psychometric properties of selected scales in the Polish version].
Med Pr. 2017 May 16;68(3):329-348. doi: 10.13075/mp.5893.00443. Epub 2017 Apr 5.

本文引用的文献

2
Cultural orientation, power, belief in conspiracy theories, and intentions to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2020 Jul;59(3):663-673. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12397. Epub 2020 Jun 27.
3
Explaining science funding attitudes in the United States: The case for science interest.
Public Underst Sci. 2019 Feb;28(2):161-176. doi: 10.1177/0963662518795397. Epub 2018 Aug 29.
4
An Evaluation of Amazon's Mechanical Turk, Its Rapid Rise, and Its Effective Use.
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018 Mar;13(2):149-154. doi: 10.1177/1745691617706516.
5
6
Not All Skepticism Is Equal: Exploring the Ideological Antecedents of Science Acceptance and Rejection.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2018 Mar;44(3):384-405. doi: 10.1177/0146167217741314. Epub 2017 Dec 1.
7
Contesting epistemic authority: Conspiracy theories on the boundaries of science.
Public Underst Sci. 2015 May;24(4):466-80. doi: 10.1177/0963662514559891. Epub 2014 Dec 1.
9
Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review.
Public Underst Sci. 2012 Oct;21(7):782-95. doi: 10.1177/0963662510392485. Epub 2011 Mar 1.
10
The postmodern assault on science. If all truths are equal, who cares what science has to say?
EMBO Rep. 2012 Oct;13(10):885-9. doi: 10.1038/embor.2012.130. Epub 2012 Sep 18.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验