CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 179Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesCOVID-19 and Mental Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The CSS-12: Development and Validation of a Short-Form Version of the Cyberchondria Severity Scale

Open access
McElroy, Eoin, Kearney, Mathew, Touhey, Jade, Evans, Joseph, Cooke, Yasmin, Shevlin, Mark·2019·Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking
DOI 10.1089/cyber.2018.0624
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract Cyberchondria is defined as an increase in anxiety about one's health status as a result of excessive online searches. McElroy and Shevlin (2014) developed the first multidimensional, self-report measure of this construct–the Cyberchondria Severity Scale (CSS). The CSS consists of 33 items which can be summed to form a total score, and/or 5 subscale scores. The aim of the present study was to develop a short-form version of the CSS, removing the “Mistrust” subscale. Participants were undergraduate students from two UK universities ( N = 661, 73% female, M age = 22.19 years, SD = 5.88). Students completed the CSS, Short Health Anxiety Inventory (SHAI) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7). Twelve items were chosen for retention in the short form based on an exploratory factor analysis. These items corresponded to the four factors previously identified in the 33-item scale (minus the “Mistrust” subscale). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate the structure of the CSS-12. Confirmatory bifactor modeling indicated that the majority of item covariance was accounted for by a general cyberchondria factor. Construct validity was assessed by examining associations with the SHAI and GAD-7, with stronger correlations observed between the CSS-12 and the SHAI (compared with the GAD-7). The CSS-12 is a brief, reliable, and valid measure of worry/anxiety attributable to excessive online health research.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/cyber.2018.0624

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 41 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Rennis L, , McNamara G, , Seidel E, et al. Google it!: urban community college students' use of the internet to obtain self-care and personal health information. College Student Journal, 2015; 49:414–426.
  2. Fox S, , Duggan M. (2013) Health online 2013. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
  3. 10.33151/ajp.8.1.107 · DOI
  4. Muthén LK, , Muthén BO. (2012) Mplus. Statistical Analysis With Latent Variables (Version 7). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, p. 7.
  5. Stucky BD, , Edelen MO (2014). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In Reise SP, , Revicki DA, eds. Handbook of Item Response Theory Modeling: Applications to Typical Performance Assessment. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 183–206.
  6. White RW, , Horvitz E. Web to World: Predicting transitions from self-diagnosis to the pursuit of local medical assistance in web search. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, 2010; 2010:882–886.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–179 of 179

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
McElroy, E., Kearney, M., Touhey, J., Evans, J., Cooke, Y., & Shevlin, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • University of Ulster (GB)
Corresponding author
McElroy, Eoin
ORCID
Venue
Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2019-05
Volume
22
Issue
5
Pages
330-335
ISSN
  • 2152-2715 (ISSN-L)
  • 2152-2723
DOI
10.1089/cyber.2018.0624
OpenAlex
W2941943387
Cited by
179
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 1
FWCI
19.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ulster University Research Portal (Ulster University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
Keywords
cyberchondria, Cyberchondria Severity Scale, short-form scale development, online health information seeking, health anxiety, bifactor model, construct validity, Short Health Anxiety Inventory, generalized anxiety disorder
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Hypochondriasis, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Universities, Reproducibility of Results, Internet, Young Adult, Self Report, Diagnostic Self Evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review