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, Mage = 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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
RennisL, McNamaraG, SeidelE, 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.
ManganelloJ, GerstnerG, PergolinoK, et al.The relationship of health literacy with use of digital technology for health information: implications for public health practice. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 2017; 23:380–387.
3.
HubertyJ, DinkelD, BeetsMW, et al.Describing the use of the internet for health, physical activity, and nutrition information in pregnant women. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 2013; 17:1363–1372.
4.
FoxS, DugganM. (2013) Health online 2013. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
5.
StarcevicV, BerleD. Cyberchondria: towards a better understanding of excessive health-related Internet use. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 2013; 13:205–213.
6.
WhiteRW, HorvitzE. Cyberchondria: studies of the escalation of medical concerns in web search. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 2009; 27:23.
7.
MuseK, McManusF, LeungC, et al.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, 2012; 26:189–196.
8.
BaumgartnerSE, HartmannT. The role of health anxiety in online health information search. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2011; 14:613–618.
9.
StarcevicV. Cyberchondria: Challenges of Problematic Online Searches for Health-Related Information. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 2017; 86:129–133.
10.
McElroyE, ShevlinM. The development and initial validation of the cyberchondria severity scale (CSS). Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 2014; 28:259–265.
11.
FergusTA. The Cyberchondria Severity Scale (CSS): an examination of structure and relations with health anxiety in a community sample. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 2014; 28:504–510.
12.
NorrAM, AllanNP, BoffaJW, et al.Validation of the Cyberchondria Severity Scale (CSS): replication and extension with bifactor modeling. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 2015; 31:58–64.
13.
FergusTA. Anxiety sensitivity and intolerance of uncertainty as potential risk factors for cyberchondria: A replication and extension examining dimensions of each construct. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2015; 184:305–309.
14.
MathesBM, NorrAM, AllanNP, et al.Cyberchondria: Overlap with health anxiety and unique relations with impairment, quality of life, and service utilization. Psychiatry Research, 2018; 261:204–211.
15.
SelviY, TuranSG, SayinAA, et al.The Cyberchondria Severity Scale (CSS): Validity and Reliability Study of the Turkish Version. Sleep and Hypnosis, 2018; 20:241–246.
16.
BarkeA, BleichhardtG, RiefW, et al.The Cyberchondria Severity Scale (CSS): German validation and development of a short form. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 2016; 23:595–605.
17.
SilvaFGd, AndradeR, SilvaI, et al.Cross-cultural adaptation of the Cyberchondria Severity Scale for Brazilian Portuguese. Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, 2016; 38:90–95.
18.
PreacherKJ, MacCallumRC. Repairing Tom Swift's electric factor analysis machine. Understanding Statistics: Statistical Issues in Psychology, Education, and the Social Sciences, 2003; 2:13–43.
19.
SchmittTA. Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2011; 29:304–321.
20.
SalkovskisPM, RimesKA, WarwickH, et al.The Health Anxiety Inventory: development and validation of scales for the measurement of health anxiety and hypochondriasis. Psychological Medicine, 2002; 32:843–853.
21.
AbramowitzJ, DeaconB, ValentinerD. The Short Health Anxiety Inventory in an undergraduate sample: Implications for a cognitive-behavioral model of hypochondriasis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2007; 31:871–883.
22.
SpitzerRL, KroenkeK, WilliamsJB, et al.A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2006; 166:1092–1097.
23.
LöweB, DeckerO, MüllerS, et al.Validation and standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in the general population. Medical Care, 2008; 46:266–274.
24.
HornJL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1965; 30:179–185.
25.
WilliamsB, OnsmanA, BrownT. Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 2010; 8:1–13.
26.
RhemtullaM, Brosseau-LiardPÉ, SavaleiV. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 2012; 17:354.
27.
BentlerPM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 1990; 107:238.
28.
TuckerLR, LewisC. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1973; 38:1–10.
29.
SteigerJH. Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1990; 25:173–180.
30.
HuLT, BentlerPM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1999; 6:1–55.
31.
BarrettP. Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 2007; 42:815–824.
32.
KennyDA, KaniskanB, McCoachDB. The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 2015; 44:486–507.
33.
TaasoobshiraziG, WangS. The performance of the SRMR, RMSEA, CFI, and TLI: An examination of sample size, path size, and degrees of freedom. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 2016; 11:31–39.
34.
SatorraA, BentlerPM. A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 2001; 66:507–514.
35.
AkaikeH. Likelihood of a model and information criteria. Journal of Econometrics, 1981; 16:3–14.
36.
SchwarzG. Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 1978; 6:461–464.
37.
MuthénLK, MuthénBO. (2012) Mplus. Statistical Analysis With Latent Variables (Version 7). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, p. 7.
38.
RodriguezA, ReiseSP, HavilandMG. Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 2016; 98:223–237.
39.
ReiseSP, MooreTM, HavilandMG. Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 2010; 92:544–559.
40.
ReiseSP, ScheinesR, WidamanKF, et al.Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2013; 73:5–26.
41.
StuckyBD, EdelenMO (2014). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In ReiseSP, RevickiDA, eds. Handbook of Item Response Theory Modeling: Applications to Typical Performance Assessment. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 183–206.
42.
WhiteRW, HorvitzE. 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.
43.
FergusTA, RussellLH. Does cyberchondria overlap with health anxiety and obsessive–compulsive symptoms? An examination of latent structure and scale interrelations. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 2016; 38:88–94.
44.
FergusTA, DolanSL. Problematic internet use and internet searches for medical information: the role of health anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2014; 17:761–765.
45.
SunderlandM, NewbyJM, AndrewsG. Health anxiety in Australia: Prevalence, comorbidity, disability and service use. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 2013; 202:56–61.
46.
MatsunagaM. How to factor-analyze your data right: do's, don'ts, and how-to's. International Journal of Psychological Research, 2010; 3:97–110.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
