Advertisement

The Development and Validation of the Short Cyberchondria Scale (SCS)

  • Nataša Jokić-BegićEmail author
  • Una Mikac
  • Doris Čuržik
  • Claire Sangster Jokić
Article

Abstract

Assessment tools for measuring cyberchondria, a process of increased anxiety over one’s health as a result of excessive online searching, are still in the early stages of development. The goals of the present study were to develop a short cyberchondria scale and to evaluate its structure, reliability and validity among participants from a community sample. The analyses conducted in this study were based on data from three samples (N1 = 540; N2 = 379; N3 = 594) that were recruited online via a snowball method. Participants provided demographic information and completed the Short Cyberchondria Scale (SCS) as well as three comparison measures (Cyberchondria Severity Scale, Anxiety Sensitivity Index and Health Anxiety Questionnaire) via an online survey tool. Extensive analyses were performed in order to inspect various aspects of the validity of the new SCS scale, including its factor structure, measurement invariance and convergent validity. The findings of the present study suggest that the SCS is a satisfactory instrument for measuring cyberchondria.

Keywords

Cyberchondria Short Cyberchondria Scale Internet searching Health anxiety Anxiety sensitivity 

Notes

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

Nataša Jokić-Begić declares that she has no conflict of interest. Una Mikac declares that she has no conflict of interest. Doris Čuržik declares that she has no conflict of interest. Claire Sangster-Jokić declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Experiment Participants

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Bajcar, B., Babiak J., & Olshowska-Kotala, A. (2018). Cyberchondria and its measurement. The polish adaptation and psychometric properties of Cyberchondria severity scale CSS-PL. Polish Psychiatry, (in press) PL ISSN 0033-2674 (print), ISSN 2391-5854 (online).Google Scholar
  2. Barić, H., & Trkulja, V. (2012). Declining health anxiety throughout medical studies: It is mainly about a more relaxed perception of the health-related concerns. Medical Teacher, 34(12), 1056–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barke, A., Bleichhardt, G., Rief, W., & Doering, B. K. (2016). The cyberchondria severity scale (CSS): German validation and development of a short form. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 23(5), 595–605.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-016-9549-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, S. E., & Hartmann, T. (2011). The role of health anxiety in online health information search. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(10), 613–618.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black, P. (2009). The dangers of using Google as a diagnostic aid. British Journal of Nursing, 18, 1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Danner, D., Blasius, J., Breyer, B., Eifler, S., Menold, N., Paulhus, D. L., ... & Ziegler, M. (2016). Current challenges, new developments, and future directions in scale construction.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000375.
  8. Doherty-Torstrick, E. R., Walton, K. E., & Fallon, B. A. (2016). Cyberchondria: Parsing health anxiety from online behavior. Psychosomatics, 57(4), 390–400.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psym.2016.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105(3), 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dwyer, D. S., & Liu, H. (2013). The impact of consumer health information on the demand for health services. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 53(1), 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2012.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards, P. J., Roberts, I., Clarke, M. J., DiGuiseppi, C., Wentz, R., Kwan, I., et al. (2009). Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. The Cochrane Library.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4.
  12. European Commission, Brussels (2015). Flash Eurobarometer 404 (European Citizens´ Digital Health Literacy). TNS Political & Social [producer]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5948 Data file Version 1.0.0,  https://doi.org/10.4232/1.12194
  13. Fergus, T. A. (2014). The Cyberchondria severity scale (CSS): An examination of structure and relations with health anxiety in a community sample. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28(6), 504–510.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fergus, T. A., & Spada, M. M. (2018). Moving toward a metacognitive conceptualization of cyberchondria: Examining the contribution of metacognitive beliefs, beliefs about rituals, and stop signals. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 60, 11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garrido, L. E., Abad, F. J., & Ponsoda, V. (2013). A new look at Horn’s parallel analysis with ordinal variables. Psychological Methods, 18(4), 454–474.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geiser, C., Bishop, J., & Lockhart, G. (2015). Collapsing factors in multitrait-multimethod models: Examining consequences of a mismatch between measurement design and model. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 946.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gogol, K., Brunner, M., Goetz, T., Martin, R., Ugen, S., Keller, U., ... & Preckel, F. (2014). “My questionnaire is too long!” the assessments of motivational-affective constructs with three-item and single-item measures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 188–205. http://d-nb.info/1093565373/34
  18. Gray, N. J., Klein, J. D., Noyce, P. R., Sesselberg, T. S., & Cantrill, J. A. (2005). The internet: A window on adolescent health literacy. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37(3), 243–2e1.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.08.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hildebrandt, A., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Sommer, C., & Wilhelm, O. (2016). Exploring factor model parameters across continuous variables with local structural equation models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(2–3), 257–258.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1142856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jurin, T., Jokić-Begić, N. & Lauri Korajlija, A. (2012). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Anxiety Sensitivity Index in a sample of Croatian adults. Assessment, 19(1), 31–41.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111402459.
  21. Lagoe, C., & Atkin, D. (2015). Health anxiety in the digital age: An exploration of psychological determinants of online health information seeking. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 484–491.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawrentschuk, N., Sasges, D., Tasevski, R., Abouassaly, R., Scott, A. M., & Davis, I. D. (2012). Oncology health information quality on the internet: A multilingual evaluation. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 19(3), 706–713.  https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-2137-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee, C. J. (2008). Does the internet displace health professionals. Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives, 13(5), 450–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Little, T. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Guilford press.Google Scholar
  25. Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lucock, M. P., & Morley, S. (1996). The health anxiety questionnaire. British Journal of Health Psychology, 1(2), 137–150.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8287.1996.tb00498.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Luger, T. M., Houston, T. K., & Suls, J. (2014). Older adult experience of online diagnosis: Results from a scenario-based think-aloud protocol. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16, e16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McElroy, E., & Shevlin, M. (2014). The development and initial validation of the cyberchondria severity scale (CSS). Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28(2), 259–265.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.12.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McManus, F., Leung, C., Muse, K., & Williams, J. M. G. (2014). Understanding ‘cyberchondria’: An interpretive phenomenological analysis of the purpose, methods and impact of seeking health information online for those with health anxiety. The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist, 7, e21.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1754470X14000270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Melli, G., Coradeschi, D., & Smurra, R. (2007). La versione italiana dell'Health anxiety questionnaire: Attendibilita e struttura fattoriale [the Italian version of health anxiety questionnaire: Reliability and factorial analysis]. Psicoterapia Cognitiva e Comportamentale, 13(1), 37. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288673697_The_Italian_version_of_Health_Anxiety_Questionnaire_Reliability_and_factorial_analysis. Accessed 27 Jan 2019.
  31. Muse, K., McManus, F., Leung, C., Meghreblian, B., & Williams, J. M. G. (2012). Cyberchondriasis: Fact or fiction? A preliminary examination of the relationship between health anxiety and searching for health information on the internet. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26(1), 189–196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.11.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Norr, A. M., Capron, D. W., & Schmidt, N. B. (2014). Medical information seeking: Impact on risk for anxiety psychopathology. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 45(3), 402–407.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2014.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Norr, A. M., Oglesby, M. E., Raines, A. M., Macatee, R. J., Allan, N. P., & Schmidt, N. B. (2015). Relationships between cyberchondria and obsessive–compulsive symptoms. Psychiatry Research, 230, 441–446.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.09.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Norr, A. M., Allan, N. P., Boffa, J. W., Raines, A. M., & Schmidt, N. B. (2015b). Validation of the Cyberchondria severity scale (CSS): Replication and extension with bifactor modeling. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 31, 58–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. North, F., Ward, W. J., Varkey, P., et al. (2012). Should you search the internet for information about your acute symptom? Telemedicine and e-Health, 18, 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Peterson, R. A., & Reiss, S. (1992). Anxiety sensitivity index manual (2nd ed., revised). Worthington: International Diagnostic Systems.Google Scholar
  37. R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 27 Jan 2019.
  38. Rammstedt, B., & Beierlein, C. (2014). Can't we make it any shorter? The limits of personality assessment and way to overcome them. Journal of Individual Differences, 35, 212–220.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W. E., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rice, R. E. (2006). Influences, usage, and outcomes of internet health information searching: Multivariate results from the pew surveys. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 75(1), 8–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. RStudio Team (2016). RStudio: Integrated development for R. RStudio, Boston, MA. http://www.rstudio.com/. Accessed 27 Jan 2019.
  43. Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-Markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Semigran, H. L., Linder, J. A., Gidengil, C., & Mehrotra, A. (2015). Evaluation of symptom checkers for self-diagnosis and triage: Audit study. BMJ, h3480.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3480.
  45. Smeets, G., de Jong, P. J., & Mayer, B. (2000). If you suffer from a headache, then you have a brain tumour: Domain-specific reasoning ‘bias’ and hypochondriasis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38(8), 763–776 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10937425. Accessed 27 Jan 2019.
  46. Starcevic, V. (2017). Cyberchondria: Challenges of problematic online searches for health-related information. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 86(3), 129–133.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000465525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Starcevic, V., & Berle, D. (2013). Cyberchondria: Towards a better understanding of excessive health-related internet use. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 13(2), 205–213.  https://doi.org/10.1586/ern.12.162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90.  https://doi.org/10.1086/209528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Steinmetz, H. (2013). Analyzing observed composite differences across groups: Is partial measurement invariance enough? Methodology, 9(1), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Suziedelyte, A. (2012). How does searching for health information on the internet affect individuals' demand for health care services? Social Science & Medicine, 75(10), 1828–1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Takahashi, Y., Ohura, T., Ishizaki, T., Okamoto, S., Miki, K., Naito, M., et al. (2011). Internet use for health-related information via personal computers and cell phones in Japan: A cross-sectional population-based survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e110.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tan, S. S., & Goonawardene, N. (2017). Internet health information seeking and the patient-physician relationship: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(1), e9.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tanis, M., Hartmann, T., & te Poel, F. (2016). Online health anxiety and consultation satisfaction: A quantitative exploratory study on their relations. Patient Education and Counseling, 99(7), 1227–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor, S., & Asmundson, G. J. G. (2004). Treating health anxiety: A cognitive-behavioral approach. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  55. te Poel, F., Baumgartner, S. E., Hartmann, T., & Tanis, M. (2016). The curious case of cyberchondria: A longitudinal study on the reciprocal relationship between health anxiety and online health information seeking. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 43, 32–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2016.07.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. White, R. W., & Horvitz, E. (2009). Cyberchondria: Studies of the escalation of medical concerns in web search. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 27(4), 23–37.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1629096.1629101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. World Health Organization. (2002). Gender and mental health. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/68884/1/a85573.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2019.
  58. Zhongbo, C., & Turner, M. R. (2010). The internet for self-diagnosis and prognostication in ALS. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, 11, 566.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.University of Applied Health StudiesZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations