Cyberchondria Scale (CS): Development, validity and reliability study
Aysegul Durak Batigun, Nagme Gor, Burcu Komurcu, Ipek Senkal Erturk
Dusunen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences 2018;31:148-162
PDF
Article No: 3   Article Type :  Research
Objective: The aim of the current study is to develop culture specific, multidimensional and self-report Cyberchondria Scale (CS) which can be used to evaluate one’s emotional, cognitive and behavioral tendency to cyberchondria and to determine the psychometric properties of this scale.

Method: The study was conducted with two different samples consisted of Internet users. To investigate the factor structure, the first sample was composed of 250 (49.6% women, 50.4% men) individuals aged between 18 and 65. The second sample in which confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted consisted of 360 (61.1% women, 38.3% men) individuals aged between 18 and 65. In addition to CS, Internet Addiction Scale (IAS), Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) and Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI) were used in this study.

Results: The exploratory and CFA revealed a five-factor structure called “Factors Increasing Anxiety”, “Compulsion/Hypochondria”, “Factors Decreasing Anxiety”, “Doctor-Patient Interaction”, “Dysfunctional Internet Use”. The model obtained by CFA represented acceptable goodness of fit values and other reliability and validity values were found to be satisfactory.

Conclusion: CS could be evaluated as a valid and reliable scale which would be used in clinical and health psychology studies conducted in Turkey.
Keywords : Cyberchondria Scale, reliability, validity
Siberkondriya Ölçeği (SİBKÖ): Geliştirme, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması
PDF
Makale No: 3   Makale Türü :  Araştırma
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, bireyin siberkondriyaya ilişkin duygusal, bilişsel ve davranışsal yatkınlığını değerlendirmede kullanılabilecek kültürümüze özgü, çok faktörlü, öz bildirime dayalı bir Siberkondriya Ölçeği (SİBKÖ) geliştirmek, geliştirilen bu ölçeğin psikometrik özelliklerini belirlemektir.

Yöntem: Çalışma, İnternet kullanabilen iki ayrı örneklem grubuyla yürütülmüştür. Ölçeğin faktör yapısının belirlendiği ilk örneklem grubunu, yaşları 18-65 arasında değişen 250 (%49.6’sı kadın, %50.4’ü erkek) kişi oluşturmuştur. Ölçeğin doğrulayıcı faktör analizinin (DFA) gerçekleştirildiği ikinci örneklem grubunu ise 18-65 yaş arasında 360 (%61.1’i kadın, %38.3’ü erkek) kişi oluşturmuştur. Çalışmada SİBKÖ’nün yanı sıra, İnternet Bağımlılığı Ölçeği (İBÖ), Kısa Semptom Envanteri (KSE) ve Sağlık Anksiyetesi Envanteri (SANKE) kullanılmıştır.

Bulgular: Yapılan açımlayıcı ve DFA sonucunda, “Kaygıyı Artıran Faktörler”, “Kompulsiyon/Hipokondri”, “Kaygıyı Azaltan Faktörler”, “Doktor-Hasta Etkileşimi” ve “İşlevsel Olmayan İnternet Kullanımı” olarak adlandırılan beş faktörlü yapı elde edilmiştir. DFA’da elde edilen model uyum indekslerinin kabul edilebilir sınırlar içinde olduğu görülmüş; elde edilen diğer geçerlik ve güvenirlik değerleri de uygun bulunmuştur.

Sonuç: SİBKÖ, Türkiye’de yürütülen klinik psikoloji ve sağlık psikolojisi alanındaki çalışmalarda kullanılabilecek, geçerli ve güvenilir nitelikte bir ölçek olarak değerlendirilebilir. Anahtar kelimeler: Siberkondriya Ölçeği, güvenirlik, geçerlik
Anahtar kelimeler : Siberkondriya Ölçeği, güvenirlik, geçerlik
REFERENCES
1.Greene JA, Kesselheim AS. Pharmaceutical marketing and the new social media. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:2087-2089.

2.Starcevic V, Berle D. Cyberchondria: towards a better understanding of excessive health-related Internet use. Expert Rev Neurother 2013; 13:205-213.

3.Amara R, Bodenhorn K, Cain M, Carlson R, Chambers J, Cypress D, Dempsey H, Falcon R, Garces R, Garrett J, Gasper D, Sanstad KH, Holt M, Kirsch S, Kuehn N, Kuiper H, Kyrouz E, Mittman R, Morrison E, Morrison I, Nilsen G, Pascali M, Robertson A, Runde D, Sarasohn-Kahn J, Schmid G, Wilson C, Yu K. Health and Health Care 2010: The Forecast, The Challenge. Second ed., Institute for the Future, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003.

4.Fox S. The Social Life of Health Information. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2011.

5.Higgins O, Sixsmith J, Barry MM, Domegan C. A literature review on health information-seeking behaviour on the web: a health consumer and health professional perspective. Stockholm: ECDC, 2011.

6.Huberty J, Dinkel D, Beets MW, Coleman J. Describing the use of the internet for health, physical activity, and nutrition information in pregnant women. Matern Child Health J 2013; 17:1363-1372.

7.Lemire M, Sicotte C, Paré G. Internet use and the logics of personal empowerment in health. Health Policy 2008; 88:130-140.

8.Aiken M, Kirwan G, Berry M, O’Boyle CA. The age of cyberchondria. Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Student Medical Journal 2012; 5:71-74.

9.White RW, Horvitz E. Cyberchondria: studies of the escalation of medical concerns in web search. ACM Trans Manag Inf Syst 2009; 27:23.

10.Benigeri M, Pluye P. Shortcomings of health information on the Internet. Health Promot Int 2003; 18:381-386.

11.McElroy E, Shevlin M. The development and initial validation of the Cyberchondria Severity Scale (CSS). J Anxiety Disord 2014; 28:259-265.

12.Norr AM, Capron DW, Schmidt NB. Medical information seeking: impact on risk for anxiety psychopathology. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 2014; 45:402-407.

13.Cline RJW, Haynes KM. Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Education Research 2001; 16:671-692.

14.Abramowitz JS, Olatunji BO, Deacon BJ. Health anxiety, hypochondriasis, and the anxiety disorders. Behav Ther 2007; 38:86-94.

15.Salkovskis PM, Rimes KA, Warwick HM, Clark DM. The Health Anxiety Inventory: development and validation of scales for the measurement of health anxiety and hypochondriasis. Psychol Med 2002; 32:843-853.

16.Fergus TA, Russell LH. Does cyberchondria overlap with health anxiety and obsessive–compulsive symptoms? An examination of latent structure and scale interrelations. J Anxiety Disord 2016; 38:88-94.

17.Ivanova E. Internet addiction and cyberchondria-their relationship with well-being. Journal of Education Culture and Society 2013; 1:57-70.

18.Barke A, Bleichhardt G, Rief W, Doering BK. The Cyberchondria Severity Scale (CSS): German validation and development of a short form. Int J Behav Med 2016; 23:595-605.

19.Norr AM, Albanese BJ, Oglesby ME, Allan NP, Schmidt NB. Anxiety sensitivity and intolerance of uncertainty as potential risk factors for cyberchondria. J Affect Disord 2015; 174:64-69.

20.Norr AM, Allan NP, Boffa JW, Raines AM, Schmidt NB. Validation of the Cyberchondria Severity Scale (CSS): replication and extension with bifactor modeling. J Anxiety Disord 2015; 31:58-64.

21.Norr AM, Oglesby ME, Raines AM, Macatee RJ, Allan NP, Schmidt NB. Relationships between cyberchondria and obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions. Psychiatry Res 2015; 230:441-446.

22.Muse K, McManus F, Leung C, Meghreblian B, Williams JM. Cyberchondriasis: fact or fiction? A preliminary examination of the relationship between health anxiety and searching for health information on the internet. J Anxiety Disord 2012; 26:189-196.

23.Baumgartner SE, Hartmann T. The role of health anxiety in online health information search. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2011; 14:613-618.

24.White RW, Horvitz E. Experiences with web search on medical concerns and self-diagnosis. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2009; 2009:696-700.

25.Doherty-Torstrick ER, Walton KE, Fallon BA. Cyberchondria: parsing health anxiety from online behavior. Psychosomatics 2016; 57:390-400.

26.White RW, Horvitz E. Web to world: predicting transitions from self-diagnosis to the pursuit of local medical assistance in web search. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2010; 2010:882-886.

27.Ravdin LD. Guide for clinicians in the age of cyberchondria. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2008; 14:912-916.

28.Keller GL, Padala PR, Petty F. Clinical pearls to manage cyberchondriacs. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry 2008; 10:75-76.

29.Fergus, TA. The Cyberchondria Severity Scale (CSS): an examination of structure and relations with health anxiety in a community sample. J Anxiety Disord 2014; 28:504-510.

30.Uzun SU. The level of cyberchondria and associated factors among Pamukkale University employees. Thesis of specialty in medicine, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey, 2016. (Turkish)

31.Uzun SU, Akbay B, Ozdemir C, Zencir M. The validity and reliability of the cyberchondria severity scale and its short form in university students. Abstrack Book of the National Public Health Congress, 2017, p241. (Turkish)

32.Erkus A. Scientific Research Process. Fourth Ed. Ankara: Seckin Yayincilik, 2013, 122-123. (Turkish)

33.Young KS. Internet addiction: the emergence of a new clinical disorder. Cyberpsychol Behav 1998; 1:237-244.

34.Bayraktar F. The role of internet use during adolescence. Master of science thesis, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey, 2001. (Turkish)

35.Batigun AD, Hasta D. Internet addiction: an evaluation in terms of loneliness and interpersonal relationship styles. Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry 2010; 11:213-219. (Turkish)

36.Derogatis LR. The Brief Symtom Inventory (BSI): Administration, scoring and procedures manual. Second ed., USA: Clinical Psychometric Research Inc., 1992.

37.Sahin NH, Durak A. Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI): adapting to the Turkish youth. Turkish Journal of Psychology 1994; 9:44-56. (Turkish)

38.Sahin NH, Batigun AD, Ugurtas S. The validity, reliability and factor structure of the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). Turk Psikiyatri Derg 2002; 13:125-135. (Turkish)

39.Karaer-Karapicak O, Aktas K, Aslan S. Turkish validity and reliability study of Health Anxiety Inventory (Weekly Short Form) in cases of panic disorders. Turkish Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2012; 15:41-48. (Turkish)

40.Aydemir O, Kirpinar I, Sati T, Uykur B, Cengisiz C. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Health Anxiety Inventory. Noro Psikiyatr Ars 2013; 50:325-331. (Turkish)

41.Worthington RL, Whittaker TA. Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Couns Psychol 2006; 34:806-838.

42.Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. Fourth ed., Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001.

43.Cokluk O, Sekercioglu G, Buyukozturk S. Multivariance Statistical SPSS and LISREL Applications for Social Sciences. Ankara: Pegem, 2012. (Turkish)

44.Sumer N. Structural equality models: basic concepts and model practices. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları 2000; 3:49-74. (Turkish)

45.Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999; 6:1-55.

46.Cole DA. Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. J Consult Clin Psychol 1987; 55:584-594.

47.Loehlin JC. Path Models in Factor, Path, and Structural Equation Analysis. Latent Variable Models. Fourth ed., ABD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004, 202-254.

48.Byrne BM. Testing for the Factorial Validity of a Theoretical Construct. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Second ed., New York: Routledge, 2010, 74-82.

49.Aron A, Aron EN. Making Sense of Advanced Statistical Procedures in Research Articles. Statistics For Psychology. Third ed., New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2003, 599-637.

50.Erkus A. Scientific Research Process for Behavioral Sciences: Paper-Based Data Collection Tools. Fourth Ed. Ankara: Seckin Yayinevi, 2013, 149-168. (Turkish)

51.Field A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Third ed., London: Sage, 2009.

52.Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. Third ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

53.Erkus, A. Letters on psychometry: historical origins of measurement and psychometry, its reliability, validity, item analysis, attitudes: its components and measurement. Ankara: Turk Psikologlar Dernegi Yayinlari, 2003.

54.Zorbaz O, Tuzgol-Dost M. Examination of problematic internet use of high school student in terms of gender, social anxiety and peer relations. Hacettepe University Journal of Education 2014; 29:298-310. (Turkish)

55.Batigun AD, Kilic N. Associations between internet addiction and personal characteristics, social support, psychological symptoms, and some socio-demographic features. Turkish Journal of Psychology 2011; 26:1-10. (Turkish)

56.Bouwman MG, Teunissen QG, Wijburg FA, Linthorst GE. ‘Doctor Google’ending the diagnostic odyssey in lysosomal storage disorders: parents using internet search engines as an efficient diagnostic strategy in rare diseases. Arch Dis Child 2010; 95:642-644.

57.Kim S, Southwell B. Driven to the internet? Satisfaction with physician-patient communication as a predictor of consumers’ online information seeking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Suntec City, Singapore, 2010. http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p403793_index.html

58.Lewis T. Seeking health information on the internet: lifestyle choice or bad attack of cyberchondria? Media Cult Soc 2006; 28:521-539.

59.Lowrey W, Anderson WB. The impact of internet use on the public perception of physicians: a perspective from the sociology of professions literature. Health Commun 2006; 19:125-131.

60.Benigeri M, Pluye P. Shortcomings of health information on the Internet. Health Promot Int 2003; 18:381-386.

61.Turkish Statistics Institute. The number of physicians, the number of individuals per physician, and the number of visits per physician during 2009-2015. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=1612 Accessed December 11, 2017. (Turkish)

62.Fox S. Online Health Search. Pew Internet and American Life 2006. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2006/PIP_Online_Health_2006.pdf.pdf Accessed December 11, 2017.
SUBMIT AN ARTICLE
COVER
Creative Commons Lisansı

Dusunen Adam: The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Düşünen Adam - Psikiyatri ve Nörolojik Bilimler Dergisi
Bakırköy Prof. Dr. Mazhar Osman Ruh Sağlığı ve Sinir Hastalıkları Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi
Yayıncı
Yerküre Tanıtım ve Yayıncılık Hizmetleri A.Ş.