3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations.

          Scale developers often provide evidence of content validity by computing a content validity index (CVI), using ratings of item relevance by content experts. We analyzed how nurse researchers have defined and calculated the CVI, and found considerable consistency for item-level CVIs (I-CVIs). However, there are two alternative, but unacknowledged, methods of computing the scale-level index (S-CVI). One method requires universal agreement among experts, but a less conservative method averages the item-level CVIs. Using backward inference with a purposive sample of scale development studies, we found that both methods are being used by nurse researchers, although it was not always possible to infer the calculation method. The two approaches can lead to different values, making it risky to draw conclusions about content validity. Scale developers should indicate which method was used to provide readers with interpretable content validity information. (c) 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            A QUANTITATIVE APPROACH TO CONTENT VALIDITY

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists.

              There is increasing evidence that scientific misconduct is more common than previously thought. Strong emphasis on scientific productivity may increase the sense of publication pressure. We administered a nationwide survey to Flemish biomedical scientists on whether they had engaged in scientific misconduct and whether they had experienced publication pressure. A total of 315 scientists participated in the survey; 15% of the respondents admitted they had fabricated, falsified, plagiarized, or manipulated data in the past 3 years. Fraud was more common among younger scientists working in a university hospital. Furthermore, 72% rated publication pressure as "too high." Publication pressure was strongly and significantly associated with a composite scientific misconduct severity score.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Med Ethics Hist Med
                J Med Ethics Hist Med
                JMEHM
                Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine
                Tehran University of Medical Sciences (Tehran, Iran )
                2008-0387
                2020
                10 November 2020
                : 13
                : 18
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Research Assistant, National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD), Tehran, Iran.
                [2 ] Associate Professor, Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
                [3 ] Senior Research Fellow, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
                [4 ] Assistant Professor, Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran; Department of Medical Ethics, School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
                [5 ] Assistant Professor, National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD), Tehran, Iran.
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding Author: Bita Mesgarpour. No. 21, West Fatemi St., National Institute for Medical Research Development (NIMAD), Tehran, Iran. Tel: (+98) 21 66 93 80 37. Email: mesgarpour@ 123456research.ac.ir
                Article
                JMEHM-13-18
                10.18502/jmehm.v13i18.4826
                7838887
                dcf4c13e-791d-472b-a108-dac241290500
                © 2020 Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license, ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 27 May 2020
                : 1 October 2020
                Categories
                Original Article

                biomedical research,psychometrics,scientific misconduct,research misconduct,surveys,questionnaires,translation.

                Comments

                Comment on this article