Development and validation of a questionnaire (GHOST) to assess sudden, unexplained communication exclusion or "ghosting".
Cyberpsychology
Icing
Psychometrics
Simmering
Social media
Social networking
Journal
Heliyon
ISSN: 2405-8440
Titre abrégé: Heliyon
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101672560
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
19
12
2022
revised:
05
06
2023
accepted:
06
06
2023
medline:
24
7
2023
pubmed:
24
7
2023
entrez:
24
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The topic of "ghosting" as a method of terminating a relationship has been discussed in both popular media and academic circles. Although research on this issue is scarce, the concept has acquired popularity and gained scholarly attention. A reliable and valid measure of this phenomenon does not, however, exist. GHOST (The Ghosting Questionnaire) was designed and psychometrically tested to explore ghostee experiences. A total of 811 adults participated in an online survey to test this instrument. It was developed based on a thorough analysis of research on the topic of ghosting using a phenomenological qualitative method to identify ghosting domains and generate questionnaire items. In terms of content validity and construct validity, the final version of the measure was found to be satisfactory. GHOST was found to have adequate internal consistency - scores of 0.74, 0.74, and 0.80, indicating acceptable Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega, and ordinal's alpha coefficients, respectively. Factor analyses found the GHOST questionnaire to be a valid and reliable instrument that can be used for screening ghosting experiences and for designing community-based distress prevention and intervention programs. A dynamic fit index (DFI) cutoffs approach was also used and showed robust fitting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37484221
doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17066
pii: S2405-8440(23)04274-3
pmc: PMC10361225
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e17066Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
Psychotherapy (Chic). 2022 Dec;59(4):545-553
pubmed: 35925725
J Adv Nurs. 2018 Jul;74(7):1723-1734
pubmed: 29543383
Multivariate Behav Res. 1990 Apr 1;25(2):173-80
pubmed: 26794479
Multivariate Behav Res. 1997 Oct 1;32(4):329-53
pubmed: 26777071
Psychol Bull. 1988 Mar;103(2):265-275
pubmed: 3363047
Psychol Methods. 2023 Feb;28(1):61-88
pubmed: 34694832
Struct Equ Modeling. 2020;27(2):318-329
pubmed: 32774078
J Soc Psychol. 2022 May 27;:1-20
pubmed: 35621208
Behav Res Methods. 2019 Feb;51(1):440-450
pubmed: 30684229
Front Public Health. 2018 Jun 11;6:149
pubmed: 29942800
Multivariate Behav Res. 2023 Jan-Feb;58(1):195-219
pubmed: 36787523
Psychol Assess. 2019 Dec;31(12):1428-1441
pubmed: 31120298
Healthcare (Basel). 2023 May 22;11(10):
pubmed: 37239789
Educ Psychol Meas. 2018 Dec;78(6):1056-1071
pubmed: 30559513
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020 Dec 9;18(1):381
pubmed: 33298059
Qual Life Res. 2018 Jun;27(6):1635-1645
pubmed: 29569015
Psychol Bull. 1990 Mar;107(2):238-46
pubmed: 2320703
Sleep Med. 2022 Oct;98:152-157
pubmed: 35868112
Clocks Sleep. 2022 Sep 27;4(4):508-519
pubmed: 36278533
Behav Sci (Basel). 2022 Dec 30;13(1):
pubmed: 36661607
Psychometrika. 2021 Dec;86(4):843-860
pubmed: 34387809
Behav Res Methods. 2023 Apr;55(3):1157-1174
pubmed: 35585278
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Feb 10;17(3):
pubmed: 32050561