Assessing Rodent Attitudes: The Psychometric Properties of the SARod in a Chilean Context
Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design
2.2. Participants
2.3. Instruments
2.4. Procedure
2.5. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Analysis of the Items
3.2. Analysis of the Factorial Structure of the SARod, and Descriptive Analysis of the Items According to the Factorial Structure Obtained
3.3. Internal Consistency
3.4. Evidence of Validity of the SARod Based on the Relationship with Other Variables: Gender, Educational Level, Age, Interaction with Rodents, and Willingness to Exterminate Rodents
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Items | M | SD | Skew | Kurt | CTI-C | CIT-TD | |
Scientistic | |||||||
1 | Me gustaría recibir material educativo acerca de los roedores | 3.96 | 1.06 | −1.031 | 0.730 | 0.465 | 0.675 |
2 | Me gustaría aprender más acerca de los roedores | 3.99 | 1.03 | −1.087 | 0.902 | 0.531 | 0.748 |
3 | Quisiera ser parte de congresos. seminario o actividades científicas que involucren aprender sobre roedores | 3.08 | 1.23 | −0.016 | −0.906 | 0.551 | 0.842 |
4 | Quisiera intercambiar conocimiento con otras personas acerca de los roedores | 3.16 | 1.17 | −0.073 | −0.720 | 0.561 | 0.823 |
5 | Me gustaría poder enseñar en temáticas relacionadas a roedores | 2.93 | 1.26 | 0.091 | −0.971 | 0.496 | 0.750 |
6 | Me gustaría leer publicaciones científicas u otro material acerca de roedores | 3.46 | 1.17 | −0.629 | −0.390 | 0.527 | 0.794 |
Positivistic | |||||||
7 | Considero que los roedores son importantes para el funcionamiento de los ecosistemas | 4.39 | 0.83 | −1.546 | 2.678 | 0.599 | 0.760 |
8 | Creo que los roedores deberían ser protegidos por las personas | 3.83 | 1.01 | −0.537 | −0.245 | 0.700 | 0.770 |
9 | Debemos aprender a coexistir con los roedores | 4.08 | 0.97 | −1.131 | 1.019 | 0.664 | 0.704 |
10 | El tener roedores en las cercanías de donde vivo me puede resultar positivo o beneficioso | 3.10 | 1.14 | 0.007 | −0.734 | 0.635 | 0.623 |
11 | Considero que los roedores tienen una importancia asociada a la dispersión de semillas | 3.96 | 1.02 | −0.822 | 0.137 | 0.626 | 0.754 |
12 | Los roedores son pieza clave de las cadenas tróficas | 4.14 | 0.89 | −0.914 | 0.695 | 0.621 | 0.764 |
13 | Los roedores implican un aumento en la biodiversidad de áreas protegidas | 3.98 | 0.95 | −0.642 | −0.131 | 0.591 | 0.738 |
Negativistic | |||||||
14 | Los roedores me parecen desagradables | 3.16 | 1.32 | −0.110 | −1.162 | 0.694 | 0.648 |
15 | Los roedores amenazan la salud de las personas | 2.67 | 0.94 | 0.327 | −0.244 | 0.635 | 0.674 |
16 | Los roedores me producen miedo | 3.29 | 1.33 | −0.162 | −1.219 | 0.568 | 0.553 |
17 | Los roedores deben ser exterminados | 4.13 | 0.99 | −1.092 | 0.735 | 0.602 | 0.569 |
18 | Considero que deberíamos tomar medidas de control frente a roedores | 2.42 | 0.96 | 0.675 | 0.284 | 0.511 | 0.586 |
19 | De manera preventiva debemos eliminar madrigueras de roedores | 3.50 | 1.08 | −0.286 | −0.589 | 0.666 | 0.683 |
20 | La reproducción de roedores deber ser controlada o detenida | 2.91 | 1.08 | 0.303 | −0.623 | 0.607 | 0.614 |
21 | Para el control de roedores debemos usar rodenticidas | 3.56 | 1.08 | −0.258 | −0.607 | 0.619 | 0.618 |
22 | Los roedores causan daños a cultivos agrícolas | 2.66 | 0.91 | 0.424 | 0.253 | 0.452 | 0.531 |
23 | Los roedores eliminan o compiten con otras especies de animales silvestres | 2.81 | 0.98 | 0.243 | −0.302 | 0.327 | 0.418 |
24 | Los roedores son peligrosos para animales domésticos (perro. gato. ganado u otro) | 3.15 | 1.09 | −0.061 | −0.765 | 0.452 | 0.554 |
25 | Los roedores pueden contaminar mis fuentes de agua | 2.36 | 1.01 | 0.712 | 0.103 | 0.481 | 0.580 |
26 | Los roedores causan daños en maquinaria. rotura de cables o mangueras | 2.16 | 0.85 | 0.869 | 1.120 | 0.387 | 0.488 |
27 | Los roedores son agresivos | 3.39 | 0.98 | −0.228 | −0.381 | 0.555 | 0.588 |
28 | Los roedores interfieren con las actividades de las personas (alimentación. trabajo u otro) | 2.98 | 1.08 | 0.220 | −0.678 | 0.554 | 0.641 |
Myths | |||||||
29 | Los roedores son un símbolo de malos presagios | 4.25 | 1.04 | −1.296 | 0.758 | 0.470 | 0.446 |
30 | Considero que la presencia de roedores es un símbolo de plagas | 3.27 | 1.19 | −0.062 | −1.069 | 0.669 | 0.738 |
31 | Los roedores son un símbolo de contaminación | 3.14 | 1.16 | 0.047 | −0.932 | 0.682 | 0.736 |
32 | Frente a la presencia de roedores podría enfermarme | 2.58 | 1.04 | 0.674 | −0.152 | 0.531 | 0.501 |
Note: M = mean; SD = standard deviation; Skew = skewness ; Kurt = kurtosis ; CTI-C = correlation corrected total item-complete scale; CIT-TD = corrected item-total correlation—theoretical dimensions. |
References
- Maestri, R.; Patterson, B.D. Patterns of species richness and turnover for the South American rodent fauna. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0151895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- D’Elía, G.; Canto, J.H.; Ossa, G.; Verde-Arregoitia, L.D.; Bostelmann, E.; Iriarte, A.; Amador, L.; Quiroga-Carmona, M.; Hurtado, N.; Cadenillas, R.; et al. Updated list of the mammals of Chile. Boletín del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural 2020, 69, 67–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iriarte, J.; Lobos, G.A.; Jaksic, F.M. Especies de vertebrados invasores en Chile y su control y monitoreo por agencias gubernamentales. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 2005, 78, 143–151. [Google Scholar]
- Mella, J.; Simonetti, J.A.; Spotorno, A.E.; Contreras, L.C. Mamíferos de Chile. In Diversidad y Conservación de los Mamíferos 594 Neotropicales; Ceballos, G., Simonetti, J.A., Eds.; CONABIO-UNAM: Mexico City, Mexico, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Cofré, H.L.; Samaniego, H.; Marquet, P.A. Patterns of small mammal species richness in mediterranean and temperate Chile. Quintessential Nat. Honor. Life Leg. Oliver P. Pearson 2007, 134, 275. [Google Scholar]
- Novillo, A.; Lanzone, C.; Jayat, J.P.; Teta, P.; Ojeda, A.A.; Cristobal, L.; Ojeda, R.A. Beta diversity patterns in Andean rodents: Current and historical factors as drivers of turnover and nestedness. J. Mammal. 2024, 105, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, C.; Gayer, C.; Kurucz, K.; Riesch, F.; Tscharntke, T.; Batáry, P. Ecosystem services and disservices provided by small rodents in arable fields: Effects of local and landscape management. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 548–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tschumi, M.; Ekroos, J.; Hjort, C.; Smith, H.G.; Birkhofer, K. Rodents, not birds, dominate predation-related ecosystem services and disservices in vertebrate communities of agricultural landscapes. Oecologia 2018, 188, 863–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godó, L.; Valkó, O.; Borza, S.; Deák, B. A global review on the role of small rodents and lagomorphs (clade Glires) in seed dispersal and plant establishment. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2022, 33, e01982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zúñiga, A.H.; Fuenzalida, V.; Sandoval, R.; Encina, F. Seasonal variation in the diet of two predators in an agroecosystem in southern-central Chile. Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 2021, 44, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Begon, M. Disease: Health effects on humans, population effects on rodents. Aciar Monograph Series 2003, 96, 13–19. [Google Scholar]
- Panti-May, J.A.; De Andrade, R.R.C.; Gurubel-González, Y.; Palomo-Arjona, E.; Sodá-Tamayo, L.; Meza-Sulú, J.; Costa, F. A survey of zoonotic pathogens carried by house mouse and black rat populations in Yucatan, Mexico. Epidemiol. Infect. 2017, 145, 2287–2295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brown, P.R.; Giraudoux, P.; Jacob, J.; Couval, G.; Wolff, C. Multi-stakeholder working groups to improve rodent management outcomes in agricultural systems. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2024, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S.R. Public Attitudes toward Critical Wildlife and Natural Habitat Issues. Phase 1; Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior: Washington, DC, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Kellert, S.R. American Attitudes toward and Knowledge of Animals: An Update. In Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1984/85; The Humane Society of the United States: Washington, DC, USA, 1984; pp. 177–213. [Google Scholar]
- Knight, A.J. “Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prokop, P.; Tunnicliffe, S.D. “Disgusting” animals: Primary school children’s attitudes and myths of bats and spiders. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2008, 4, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Prokop, P.; Fancovicová, J.; Kubiatko, M. Vampires Are Still Alive: Slovakian Students’. Attitudes toward Bats. Anthrozoös 2009, 22, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Musila, S.; Prokop, P.; Gichuki, N. Knowledge and perceptions of, and attitudes to, bats by people living around Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Malindi-Kenya. Anthrozoös 2018, 31, 247–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boso, À.; Álvarez, B.; Pérez, B.; Imio, J.C.; Altamirano, A.; Lisón, F. Understanding human attitudes towards bats and the role of information and aesthetics to boost a positive response as a conservation tool. Anim. Conserv. 2021, 24, 937–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez, B.; Álvarez, B.; Boso, A.; Lisón, F. Design and psychometric properties of the BAtSS: A new tool to assess attitudes towards bats. Animals 2021, 11, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitte, B.; Heim, S.; Guerreiro Martins, N.; Canova, V.; Panisse, G.; Robles, M.D.R.; Navone, G.T. Social perception of urban rodents and health risk in neighborhoods of Greater La Plata, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. Revista Argentina de Salud Pública 2022, 14, 69. [Google Scholar]
- Donga, T.K.; Bosma, L.; Gawa, N.; Meheretu, Y. Rodents in agriculture and public health in Malawi: Farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Front. Agron. 2022, 4, 936908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flor, R.J.B.; Singleton, G.R. Can media campaign messages influence change towards ecologically based rodent management? Wildl. Res. 2011, 38, 579–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makundi, R.H.; Bekele, A.; Leirs, H.; Massawe, A.W.; Rwamugira, W.; Mulungu, L.S. Farmer’s perceptions of rodents as crop pests: Knowl-edge, attitudes and practices in rodent pest management in Tanzania and Ethiopia. Belg. J. Zool. 2005, 135, 153–157. [Google Scholar]
- Morzillo, A.T.; Mertig, A.G. Urban resident attitudes toward rodents, rodent control products, and environmental effects. Urban Ecosyst. 2011, 14, 243–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castilla, M.C.; Campos, C.; Colantonio, S.; Díaz, M. Percepciones y actitudes de la población local hacia los murciélagos en el entorno del dique Escaba (Tucumán, Argentina). Ethnobiol. Conserv. 2020, 9. Available online: https://ethnobioconservation.com/index.php/ebc/article/view/251 (accessed on 1 November 2024).
- Marshall, P.A.; Murphy, R.G. Investigating residents’ perceptions of urban rodents in Manchester, UK. Aciar Monograph Series 2003, 96, 473–476. [Google Scholar]
- Stuart, A.M.; Prescott, C.V.; Singleton, G.R.; Joshi, R.C. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of farmers on rodent pests and their management in the lowlands of the Sierra Madre Biodiversity Corridor, Philippines. Crop Prot. 2011, 30, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milfont, T.; Klein, R. Replication and Reproducibility in Cross-Cultural Psychology. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2018, 49, 735–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ato, M.; López-García, J.J.; Benavente, A. Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología 2013, 29, 1038–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abad, F.J.; Olea, J.; Ponsoda, V.; García, C. Medición En Ciencias Sociales y de La Salud; Síntesis: Madrid, Spain, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Lloret-Segura, S.; Ferreres-Traver, A.; Hernández-Baeza; Tomás-Marco, I. El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: Una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Anales de Psicología 2014, 30, 1151–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenberg, M.J.; Hovland, C.I. Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In Attitude Organization and Change: An Analysis of Consistency Among Attitude Components; Hovland, C.I., Rosenberg, M.J., Eds.; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1960; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Martínez Arias, M.R.; Hernández Lloreda, M.V.; Hernández Llored, M.J. Psicometría; Alianza Editorial: Madrid, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Assis Gomes, C.M.; Almeida, L.S.; Núñez, J.C. Rationale and applicability of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) in psychoeducational contexts. Psicothema 2017, 29, 396–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reise, S.P. The rediscovery of Bifactor measurement models. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2012, 47, 667–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rodríguez, A.; Reise, S.P.; Haviland, M.G. Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychol. Methods 2016, 21, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elosua, P.; Zumbo, B. Coeficientes de fiabilidad para escalas de respuesta categórica ordenada. Psicothema 2008, 20, 896–901. [Google Scholar]
- Fagerland, M.W. t-tests, non-parametric tests, and largestudies—A paradox of statistical practice? Med. Res. Methodol. 2012, 12, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2. Auflage); Erlbaum: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Análisis Multivariante; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Verdugo, M.A.; Crespo, M.; Badía, M.; Arias, B. Metodología en la investigación sobre discapacidad. Introducción al uso de las ecuaciones estructurales; Publicaciones INICIO, Colección Actas: Salamanca, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Ministerio de Desarrollo Social y Familia. Encuesta CASEN en pandemia 2020. Observatorio Social, Ministerio de Desarrollo Social y Familia. 2021. Available online: http://observatorio.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/encuesta-casen-en-pandemia-2020 (accessed on 1 November 2024).
- Marchini, S.; Ferraz, K.M.; Foster, V.; Reginato, T.; Kotz, A.; Barros, Y.; Zimmermann, A.; Macdonald, D.W. Planning for human-wildlife coexistence: Conceptual framework, workshop process, and a model for transdisciplinary collaboration. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2021, 2, 752953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bencin, H.; Kioko, J.; Kiffner, C. Local people’s perceptions of wildlife species in two distinct landscapes of Northern Tanzania. J. Nat. Conserv. 2016, 34, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sub-Sample | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Total (n = 497) | Sub-Sample 1 (n = 248; 49.9%) | Sub-Sample 2 (n = 249; 50.1%) | ||
Variables | Values | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) |
Gender | Male | 200 (40.2) | 106 (42.7) | 94 (37.8) |
Female | 291 (58.6) | 138 (55.6) | 153 (61.4) | |
Non-binary | 5 (1) | 4 (1.6) | 1 (0.4) | |
Chilean nationality | No | 14 (2.8) | 7 (2.8) | 7 (2.8) |
Yes | 483 (97.2) | 241 (97.2) | 242 (97.2) | |
Identification with native people | No | 470 (94.6) | 235 (98.8) | 235 (94.4) |
Mapuche | 23 (4.6) | 10 (4) | 13 (5.2) | |
Other | 4 (0.8) | 3 (1.2) | 1 (0.4) | |
Geographic macrozone | North | 19 (3.9) | 11 (4.5) | 8 (3.3) |
Center | 313 (63.9) | 151 (61.6) | 162 (66.1) | |
South | 158 (32.2) | 83 (33.9) | 75 (30.6) | |
Income level | Low | 156 (31.4) | 79 (31.8) | 77 (31) |
Middle-low | 122 (24.5) | 61 (24.6) | 61 (24.5) | |
Middle | 151 (30.4) | 71 (28.6) | 80 (32.1) | |
High | 68 (13.7) | 37 (14.9) | 31 (12.4) | |
Educational Level | Undergraduate | 103 (20.7) | 50 (20.2) | 53 (21.3) |
University | 248 (49.9) | 128 (51.6) | 120 (48.2) | |
Postgraduate | 146 (29.4) | 70 (28.2) | 76 (30.5) | |
Sector | Rural | 73 (14.7) | 44 (17.7) | 29 (11.6) |
Urban | 424 (85.3) | 204 (82.3) | 220 (88.4) |
Items | Factors | CITC-D | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
Scientistic | ||||||
3 | I would like to be part of congresses, seminars, or scientific activities that involve learning about rodents. | −0.907 | 0.006 | 0.018 | −0.017 | 0.861 |
4 | I would like to exchange knowledge with other people about rodents. | −0.906 | −0.025 | −0.024 | 0.033 | 0.849 |
5 | I would like to be able to teach rodent related subjects. | −0.865 | −0.055 | −0.052 | −0.001 | 0.813 |
6 | I would like to read scientific publications or other material about rodents. | −0.780 | 0.129 | 0.093 | 0.004 | 0.767 |
Positivistic | ||||||
7 | I believe that rodents are important for the functioning of ecosystems. | 0.026 | 0.880 | 0.018 | 0.068 | 0.763 |
8 | I believe that rodents should be protected by people. | −0.081 | 0.628 | −0.141 | −0.120 | 0.752 |
9 | We must learn to coexist with rodents. | −0.056 | 0.559 | −0.164 | −0.035 | 0.663 |
10 | Having rodents in the vicinity of where I live can be positive or beneficial for me. | −0.110 | 0.428 | −0.245 | −0.103 | 0.608 |
11 | I consider that rodents have an importance associated with seed dispersal. | 0.012 | 0.757 | −0.125 | 0.027 | 0.740 |
12 | Rodents are key players in food chains | −0.064 | 0.832 | 0.046 | 0.030 | 0.753 |
13 | Rodents imply an increase in biodiversity in protected areas | −0.072 | 0.777 | 0.084 | −0.027 | 0.722 |
Emotional Negativistic | ||||||
14 | I find rodents unpleasant | 0.225 | −0.111 | 0.571 | 0.126 | 0.64 |
16 | Rodents scare me | 0.069 | −0.031 | 0.790 | −0.024 | 0.697 |
27 | Rodents are aggressive | −0.036 | −0.096 | 0.409 | 0.205 | 0.467 |
29 | Rodents are a symbol of bad omens | 0.020 | −0.180 | 0.401 | 0.018 | 0.454 |
Cognitive and Behavioral Negativistic | ||||||
18 | I believe that we should take measures to control rodents. | −0.051 | −0.116 | 0.159 | 0.485 | 0.538 |
20 | Rodent reproduction must be controlled or stopped. | 0.043 | −0.280 | 0.044 | 0.458 | 0.509 |
22 | Rodents cause damage to agricultural crops | −0.032 | −0.085 | −0.206 | 0.811 | 0.604 |
23 | Rodents eliminate or compete with other species of wild animals | 0.028 | −0.005 | −0.050 | 0.572 | 0.471 |
25 | Rodents can contaminate my water sources. | 0.093 | 0.154 | 0.156 | 0.600 | 0.580 |
26 | Rodents cause damage to machinery, breakage of cables or hoses. | −0.034 | 0.163 | 0.158 | 0.543 | 0.485 |
32 | In the presence of rodents, I could get sick. | 0.097 | −0.005 | 0.185 | 0.457 | 0.524 |
Models | χ2 | gl | CFI | RMSEA | TLI | BIC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1. Oblique: 4 first-order correlated factors | 402.777 | 203 | 0.953 | 0.063 (0.054–0.072) | 0.947 | 4498.070 |
M2. Hierarchical: 4 first-order factors and one general factor | 478.056 | 210 | 0.937 | 0.072 (0.063–0.080) | 0.931 | 4498.070 |
M3. Oblique: 4 first-order factors (ESEM) | 245.266 | 149 | 0.977 | 0.051 (0.039–0.062) | 0.965 | 4490.070 |
M4. Bifactor: 4 first-order factors and a general factor. | 401.641 | 192 | 0.951 | 0.066 (0.057–0.075) | 0.941 | 4498.070 |
Factors | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scientistic | Positivistic | Emotional Negativistic | Cognitive and Behavioral Negativistic | |||
3 | 0.973 | −0.026 | 0.044 | −0.001 | ||
4 | 0.894 | 0.047 | −0.012 | −0.011 | ||
5 | 0.846 | 0.033 | 0.047 | 0.068 | ||
6 | 0.799 | 0.111 | −0.019 | 0.026 | ||
7 | 0.073 | 0.864 | 0.007 | 0.018 | ||
8 | 0.086 | 0.769 | 0.016 | −0.115 | ||
9 | 0.049 | 0.700 | −0.087 | −0.164 | ||
10 | 0.177 | 0.513 | 0.002 | −0.204 | ||
11 | 0.018 | 0.876 | 0.059 | 0.007 | ||
12 | 0.065 | 0.835 | −0.126 | 0.071 | ||
13 | 0.058 | 0.840 | −0.013 | 0.056 | ||
14 | −0.221 | −0.107 | 0.571 | 0.259 | ||
16 | −0.094 | −0.043 | 0.912 | 0.068 | ||
18 | 0.055 | −0.245 | 0.047 | 0.473 | ||
20 | 0.078 | −0.413 | 0.144 | 0.376 | ||
22 | 0.067 | −0.104 | −0.126 | 0.725 | ||
23 | −0.006 | 0.097 | −0.045 | 0.564 | ||
25 | −0.045 | 0.200 | 0.071 | 0.885 | ||
26 | −0.081 | 0.138 | −0.050 | 0.808 | ||
27 | 0.012 | −0.199 | 0.144 | 0.456 | ||
29 | 0.028 | −0.474 | 0.263 | 0.042 | ||
32 | 0.021 | −0.092 | 0.113 | 0.609 | ||
Correlations | ||||||
Scientistic | - | 0.512 ** | −0.402 ** | −0.237 ** | ||
Positivistic | - | −0.580 ** | −0.437 ** | |||
Emotional Negativistic | - | 0.548 ** | ||||
Cognitive and Behavioral Negativistic | - | |||||
McDonald Omega Ratio | ||||||
Subsample 1 | 0.945 | 0.933 | 0.812 | 0.829 | ||
Subsample 2 | 0.939 | 0.945 | 0.807 | 0.850 |
Male (n = 200) | Female (n = 291) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | t | df | p | g | |
Scientistic | 3.14 (1.07) | 3.12 (1.07) | 0.188 | 489 | 0.851 | -- |
Positivistic | 3.91 (0.79) | 3.91 (0.78) | 0.089 | 489 | 0.929 | -- |
Emotional Negativistic | 2.47 (0.84) | 2.49 (0.92) | −0.247 | 489 | 0.805 | -- |
Cognitive and Behavioral Negativistic | 3.50 (0.64) | 3.40 (0.67) | 1.621 | 489 | 0.106 | -- |
Interaction with rodents | ||||||
Never or once (n = 66) | More than once (n = 630) | |||||
Scientistic | 2.61 (0.88) | 3.24 (10.09) | −4.448 | 494 | <0.001 | 0.587 |
Positivistic | 3.53 (0.73) | 3.99 (0.77) | −4.508 | 494 | <0.001 | 0.595 |
Emotional Negativistic | 2.91 (0.82) | 2.40 (0.88) | 4.402 | 494 | <0.001 | 0.581 |
Cognitive and Behavioral Negativistic | 3.56 (0.55) | 3.41 (0.68) | 1.693 | 494 | 0.091 | -- |
Education Level | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Undergraduate (n = 103) | University (n = 248) | Postgraduate (n = 146) | ||||
Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | F | η2p | Post-Hoc (Scheffe) | |
Scientistic | 3.01 (1.03) | 3.28 (1.01) | 3.04 (1.21) | 3.236 * | ||
Positivistic | 3.67 (0.826) | 4.01 (0.72) | 3.95 (0.83) | 6.992 ** | 0.028 | 1 < 2, 3 |
Emotional Negativistic | 2.59 (1.00) | 2.40 (0.84) | 2.49 (0.89) | 1.737 | ||
Cognitive and Behavioral Negativistic | 3.59 (0.66) | 3.40 (0.62) | 3.38 (0.74) | 3.441 * |
Dimensions SARod | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Scientistic | Positivistic | Emotional Negativistic | Cognitive and Behavioral Negativistic | |
Age | −0.129 ** | −0.173 ** | 0.152 ** | 0.062 |
DER | −0.296 ** | −0.622 ** | 0.615 ** | 0.592 ** |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pérez, B.; Boso, À.; Herrera, M.; Álvarez, B.; Castilla, M.C. Assessing Rodent Attitudes: The Psychometric Properties of the SARod in a Chilean Context. Animals 2024, 14, 3239. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14223239
Pérez B, Boso À, Herrera M, Álvarez B, Castilla MC. Assessing Rodent Attitudes: The Psychometric Properties of the SARod in a Chilean Context. Animals. 2024; 14(22):3239. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14223239
Chicago/Turabian StylePérez, Beatriz, Àlex Boso, Mauricio Herrera, Boris Álvarez, and M. Cecilia Castilla. 2024. "Assessing Rodent Attitudes: The Psychometric Properties of the SARod in a Chilean Context" Animals 14, no. 22: 3239. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14223239
APA StylePérez, B., Boso, À., Herrera, M., Álvarez, B., & Castilla, M. C. (2024). Assessing Rodent Attitudes: The Psychometric Properties of the SARod in a Chilean Context. Animals, 14(22), 3239. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14223239