Developing and Validating the Susceptibility to Pseudoscience Scale

Pseudoscientific treatments in the helping professions can harm clinicians and clients. Although some clinicians may be familiar with the warning signs of pseudoscience, little research has examined which warning signs are most difficult for clinicians to identify. This study aimed to develop and validate the Susceptibility to Pseudoscience (STOP) scale and explore participant performance on the scale.

The STOP scale consists of 10 hypothetical clinical scenarios reflecting common warning signs of pseudoscience. Content validity was evaluated by three experts, while convergent and divergent validity were assessed using seven related scales completed by 82 undergraduate students in communication sciences and disorders or special education. Think-aloud protocols with five undergraduates explored construct validity. Additionally, performance on the scale was examined among undergraduates and six practicing speech-language pathologists (SLPs).

Experts matched the warning signs of pseudoscience to the STOP scale scenarios for all but one item. Significant positive correlations emerged between scores on the STOP scale and scores on the Need for Cognition-Short Form, the Scientific Reasoning Scale, and the Actively Open-Minded Thinking Scale-Short Form. Conversely, significant negative correlations were found between scores on the STOP scale and scores on the Pseudoscience Endorsement Scale, the Rational-Experiential Inventory, and the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale. Think-aloud responses aligned with a three-stage model of the dual-process theory. Undergraduates and SLPs showed similarities and differences in recognizing the warning signs of pseudoscience.

The STOP scale is a promising tool for assessing students' and clinicians' ability to detect the warning signs of pseudoscience. Findings highlight the need for targeted education to enhance pseudoscience detection among these groups.