Assessing Epistemic Trust in Common Mental Health Disorders: The Clinical Validation of ETMCQ, Measurement Invariance and Control Group Comparison

Epistemic trust is the capacity of an individual to assimilate new information and engage with their surroundings. This study focused on the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ) among individuals seeking treatment for common mental health issues (<i>N</i> = 378) compared to a non-clinical group (<i>N</i> = 357). The study aimed to validate the ETMCQ clinically, assess its consistency across clinical groups and community controls, and explore the relationship between epistemic attitudes (trust, mistrust, and credulity), mentalizing, and mental health problems by comparing the two groups. The ETMCQ's three-factor structure showed acceptable reliability and validity in the clinical setting. The measurement invariance analyses showed complete metric consistency but only partial scalar and strict consistency, with certain items not aligning across groups (Items 1, 3, 4 for scalar consistency; 2, 12, 14 for strict consistency). The results indicated that difficulties in mentalizing and increased levels of epistemic trust, mistrust, and credulity were linked to a greater likelihood of experiencing clinical distress. These outcomes underline the effectiveness of the ETMCQ in distinguishing between clinical and non-clinical individuals. However, researchers should use caution with the epistemic trust component of the questionnaire which appears to reflect a paradoxical epistemic attitude.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Personality Assessment
Published
2025-10-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2025.2571173
Primary Topic
Memory Processes and Influences
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessing Epistemic Trust in Common Mental Health Disorders: The Clinical Validation of ETMCQ, Measurement Invariance and Control Group Comparison

Tobias Nolte, Chloë Campbell, Read Montague, Güler Beril Kumpasoğlu et al.
Journal of Personality Assessment
Memory Processes and Influences
article

Assessing Epistemic Trust in Common Mental Health Disorders: The Clinical Validation of ETMCQ, Measurement Invariance and Control Group Comparison

Tobias Nolte, Chloë Campbell, Read Montague, Güler Beril Kumpasoğlu, Peter Fonagy, Stephen Pilling, Rob Saunders, Judy Leibowitz
article en

Abstract

Epistemic trust is the capacity of an individual to assimilate new information and engage with their surroundings. This study focused on the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ) among individuals seeking treatment for common mental health issues (<i>N</i> = 378) compared to a non-clinical group (<i>N</i> = 357). The study aimed to validate the ETMCQ clinically, assess its consistency across clinical groups and community controls, and explore the relationship between epistemic attitudes (trust, mistrust, and credulity), mentalizing, and mental health problems by comparing the two groups. The ETMCQ's three-factor structure showed acceptable reliability and validity in the clinical setting. The measurement invariance analyses showed complete metric consistency but only partial scalar and strict consistency, with certain items not aligning across groups (Items 1, 3, 4 for scalar consistency; 2, 12, 14 for strict consistency). The results indicated that difficulties in mentalizing and increased levels of epistemic trust, mistrust, and credulity were linked to a greater likelihood of experiencing clinical distress. These outcomes underline the effectiveness of the ETMCQ in distinguishing between clinical and non-clinical individuals. However, researchers should use caution with the epistemic trust component of the questionnaire which appears to reflect a paradoxical epistemic attitude.

Journal of Personality Assessment
Ankara University (TR), Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB), Anna Freud Centre (GB), Biomedical Research Institute (US), Behavioral Tech (US), University College London (GB), Carilion Clinic (US), Virginia Tech (US), Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Memory Processes and Influences
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.