波斯语版科研不端行为问卷(PRMQ)的心理测量学特征。

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICAL ETHICS
Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Pub Date : 2020-11-10 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.18502/jmehm.v13i18.4826
Erfan Shamsoddin, Leila Janani, Kiandokht Ghamari, Payam Kabiri, Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki, Bita Mesgarpour
{"title":"波斯语版科研不端行为问卷(PRMQ)的心理测量学特征。","authors":"Erfan Shamsoddin,&nbsp;Leila Janani,&nbsp;Kiandokht Ghamari,&nbsp;Payam Kabiri,&nbsp;Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki,&nbsp;Bita Mesgarpour","doi":"10.18502/jmehm.v13i18.4826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Assessment of scientific misconduct is considered to be an increasingly important topic in medical sciences. Providing a definition for scientific research misconduct and proposing practical methods for evaluating and measuring it in various fields of medicine discipline are required. This study aimed at assessing the psychometric properties of Scientific Research Misconduct-Revised (SMQ-R) and Publication Pressure Questionnaires (PPQ). After translation and merging of these two questionnaires, the validity of the translated draft was evaluated by 11-member expert panel using Content Validity Index (CVI) and Content Validity Ratio (CVR). Reliability of the final questionnaire, completed by 100 participants randomly chosen from medical academic members, was assessed by calculating Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The final version was named Persian Research Misconduct Questionnaire (PRMQ) and consisted of 63 question items. The item-level content validity indices of 61 questions were above 0.79, and reliability assessment showed that 6 out of 7 subscales had alpha values higher than 0.6. Hence, PRMQ can be considered an acceptable, valid and reliable tool to measure research misconduct in biomedical sciences researches in Iran.</p>","PeriodicalId":45276,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fd/c2/JMEHM-13-18.PMC7838887.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychometric properties of Persian version of the research misconduct questionnaire (PRMQ).\",\"authors\":\"Erfan Shamsoddin,&nbsp;Leila Janani,&nbsp;Kiandokht Ghamari,&nbsp;Payam Kabiri,&nbsp;Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki,&nbsp;Bita Mesgarpour\",\"doi\":\"10.18502/jmehm.v13i18.4826\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Assessment of scientific misconduct is considered to be an increasingly important topic in medical sciences. Providing a definition for scientific research misconduct and proposing practical methods for evaluating and measuring it in various fields of medicine discipline are required. This study aimed at assessing the psychometric properties of Scientific Research Misconduct-Revised (SMQ-R) and Publication Pressure Questionnaires (PPQ). After translation and merging of these two questionnaires, the validity of the translated draft was evaluated by 11-member expert panel using Content Validity Index (CVI) and Content Validity Ratio (CVR). Reliability of the final questionnaire, completed by 100 participants randomly chosen from medical academic members, was assessed by calculating Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The final version was named Persian Research Misconduct Questionnaire (PRMQ) and consisted of 63 question items. The item-level content validity indices of 61 questions were above 0.79, and reliability assessment showed that 6 out of 7 subscales had alpha values higher than 0.6. Hence, PRMQ can be considered an acceptable, valid and reliable tool to measure research misconduct in biomedical sciences researches in Iran.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45276,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fd/c2/JMEHM-13-18.PMC7838887.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v13i18.4826\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v13i18.4826","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

科学不端行为的评估被认为是医学科学中一个日益重要的话题。在医学学科的各个领域,需要对科研不端行为进行界定,并提出切实可行的评估和衡量方法。本研究旨在评估科研不端行为修正问卷(SMQ-R)和出版压力问卷(PPQ)的心理测量特征。两份问卷翻译合并后,由11人组成的专家小组采用内容效度指数(Content validity Index, CVI)和内容效度比(Content validity Ratio, CVR)对译文稿的效度进行评估。最终问卷由100名从医学学术成员中随机选择的参与者完成,通过计算Cronbach's alpha系数来评估最终问卷的可靠性。最终版本被命名为波斯研究不端行为问卷(PRMQ),由63个问题组成。61个题项的内容效度指数在0.79以上,信度评估显示7个分量表中有6个的α值大于0.6。因此,PRMQ可被视为衡量伊朗生物医学科学研究中的研究不端行为的一种可接受、有效和可靠的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Psychometric properties of Persian version of the research misconduct questionnaire (PRMQ).

Psychometric properties of Persian version of the research misconduct questionnaire (PRMQ).

Assessment of scientific misconduct is considered to be an increasingly important topic in medical sciences. Providing a definition for scientific research misconduct and proposing practical methods for evaluating and measuring it in various fields of medicine discipline are required. This study aimed at assessing the psychometric properties of Scientific Research Misconduct-Revised (SMQ-R) and Publication Pressure Questionnaires (PPQ). After translation and merging of these two questionnaires, the validity of the translated draft was evaluated by 11-member expert panel using Content Validity Index (CVI) and Content Validity Ratio (CVR). Reliability of the final questionnaire, completed by 100 participants randomly chosen from medical academic members, was assessed by calculating Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The final version was named Persian Research Misconduct Questionnaire (PRMQ) and consisted of 63 question items. The item-level content validity indices of 61 questions were above 0.79, and reliability assessment showed that 6 out of 7 subscales had alpha values higher than 0.6. Hence, PRMQ can be considered an acceptable, valid and reliable tool to measure research misconduct in biomedical sciences researches in Iran.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
23 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信