Citizen science (CS) is gaining global recognition for its potential to democratize and boost scientific research. As such, understanding why people contribute their time, energy, and skills to CS and why they (dis)continue their involvement is crucial. While several CS studies draw from existing theoretical frameworks in the psychology and volunteering fields to understand motivations, adapting these frameworks to CS research is still lagging and applications in the Global South remain limited. Here we investigated the reliability of two commonly applied psychometric tests, the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), to understand participant motivations and behaviour, in two CS networks in southwest Uganda, one addressing snail-borne diseases and another focused on natural hazards. Data was collected using a semi-structured questionnaire administered to the CS participants and a control group that consisted of candidate citizen scientists, under group and individual interview settings. Cronbach’s alpha, as an a priori measure of reliability, indicated moderate to low reliability for the VFI and TPB factors per CS network per interview setting. With evidence of highly skewed distributions, non-unidimensional data, correlated errors and lack of tau-equivalence, alpha’s underlying assumptions were often violated. More robust measures, McDonald’s omega and Greatest lower bound, generally showed higher reliability but confirmed overall patterns with VFI factors systematically scoring higher, and some TPB factors—perceived behavioural control, intention, self-identity, and moral obligation—scoring lower. Metadata analysis revealed that most problematic items often had weak item–total correlations. We propose that alpha should not be reported blindly without paying heed to the nature of the test, the assumptions, and the items comprising it. Additionally, we recommend caution when adopting existing theoretical frameworks to CS research and propose the development and validation of context-specific psychometric tests tailored to the unique CS landscape, especially for the Global South.

公民科学 (CS) 因其在民主化和促进科学研究方面的潜力而获得全球认可。因此，了解人们为何将时间、精力和技能贡献给计算机科学以及他们为何（停止）继续参与至关重要。虽然一些 CS 研究借鉴了心理学和志愿服务领域的现有理论框架来理解动机，但将这些框架应用于 CS 研究仍然滞后，并且在南半球的应用仍然有限。在这里，我们在乌干达西南部的两个 CS 网络（其中一个针对蜗牛传播疾病）中调查了两种常用心理测试（志愿者功能量表 (VFI) 和计划行为理论 (TPB)）的可靠性，以了解参与者的动机和行为另一个重点关注自然灾害。数据是通过对 CS 参与者和由候选公民科学家组成的对照组在小组和个人访谈设置下进行的半结构化问卷收集的。Cronbach 的 alpha 作为可靠性的先验度量，表明每个访谈设置每个 CS 网络的 VFI 和 TPB 因素的可靠性为中等到低。由于存在高度偏态分布、非一维数据、相关误差和缺乏 tau 等价性的证据，阿尔法的基本假设经常被违反。更稳健的衡量标准，麦当劳欧米茄和最大下限，通常表现出更高的可靠性，但证实了总体模式，VFI 因素系统性得分较高，而一些 TPB 因素（感知行为控制、意图、自我认同和道德义务）得分较低。元数据分析显示，大多数有问题的项目往往具有较弱的项目-总相关性。我们建议，在不关注测试的性质、假设及其组成项目的情况下，不应盲目报告阿尔法。此外，我们建议在 CS 研究中采用现有的理论框架时要谨慎，并建议开发和验证针对独特的 CS 景观（特别是针对全球南方）量身定制的特定背景的心理测量测试。