10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Investigating the Reliability and Factor Structure of Kalichman's "Survey 2: Research Misconduct" Questionnaire: A Post Hoc Analysis Among Biomedical Doctoral Students in Scandinavia.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A precondition for reducing scientific misconduct is evidence about scientists' attitudes. We need reliable survey instruments, and this study investigates the reliability of Kalichman's "Survey 2: research misconduct" questionnaire. The study is a post hoc analysis of data from three surveys among biomedical doctoral students in Scandinavia (2010-2015). We perform reliability analysis, and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis using a split-sample design as a partial validation. The results indicate that a reliable 13-item scale can be formed (Cronbach's α = .705), and factor analysis indicates that there are four reliable subscales each tapping a different construct: (a) general attitude to misconduct (α = .768), (b) attitude to personal misconduct (α = .784), (c) attitude to whistleblowing (α = .841), and (d) attitude to blameworthiness/punishment (α = .877). A full validation of the questionnaire requires further research. We, nevertheless, hope that the results will facilitate the increased use of the questionnaire in research.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics
          Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE
          SAGE Publications
          1556-2654
          1556-2646
          October 2017
          : 12
          : 4
          Affiliations
          [1 ] 1 University of Oslo, Norway.
          [2 ] 2 The University of Manchester, UK.
          [3 ] 3 Aalborg University, Denmark.
          [4 ] 4 Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Gjøvik, Norway.
          Article
          10.1177/1556264617714658
          28707501
          217e3661-bc3b-4a9c-838e-60e8a3ba2a42
          History

          reliability,attitudes,dishonesty,misconduct,misconduct scale,science ethics,survey methods,validation

          Comments

          Comment on this article