Literature DB >> 16578917

The Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire--Revised (SMQ-R): validation and psychometric testing.

Marion E Broome1, Erica Pryor, Barbara Habermann, Leavonne Pulley, Harold Kincaid.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The overall purposes of this article are to report the development of a survey instrument, Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R) that elicits the perceptions of research coordinators managing clinical trials about the various aspects of scientific misconduct and to present psychometric analyses for the SMQ-R.
METHODS: A panel of five researchers and research coordinators reviewed the original SMQ (Rankin and Esteeves, 1997) and suggested an additional 42 items based on the review of the literature and their own experiences in research. The SMQ-Revised (SMQ-R) consists of 68 closed-choice items in six sections and one section with 12 open-ended questions. The SMQ-R was sent to 5302 persons who were members of the Association for Clinical Research Professionals (ACRP) or subscribers to Research Practitioner, published by the Center for Clinical Research Practice (CCRP).
FINDINGS: Internal consistency of subscales was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and ranged from .83 to .84. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test construct validity of the instrument subscales. The factor structure was assessed with the principal factors method, using the squared multiple correlations as initial communality estimates followed by varimax (orthogonal) or biquartimax (oblique) rotations. Analyses revealed five distinct factors among three subscales. Construct validity for the SMQ-R was also assessed by testing hypothesized relationships using the known groups approach.
CONCLUSION: The current effort demonstrated the usefulness of the SMQ-R in obtaining information from a national sample of experienced research coordinators about their perceptions of the prevalence of different types of scientific misconduct and of factors that influence the occurrence of misconduct. The psychometric evaluation of the SMQ-R suggests good internal consistency for most subscales and suggests adequate construct validity of the instrument as a whole. The analyses also suggest that further refinement of the instrument for future studies is warranted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16578917     DOI: 10.1080/08989620500440253

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Account Res        ISSN: 0898-9621            Impact factor:   2.622


  12 in total

1.  Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey.

Authors:  Erica R Pryor; Barbara Habermann; Marion E Broome
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  In Their Own Words: Research Misconduct from the Perspective of Researchers in Malaysian Universities.

Authors:  Angelina P Olesen; Latifah Amin; Zurina Mahadi
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-12-16       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria.

Authors:  Patrick Okonta; Theresa Rossouw
Journal:  Dev World Bioeth       Date:  2012-09-20       Impact factor: 2.294

4.  Research coordinators' experiences with scientific misconduct and research integrity.

Authors:  Barbara Habermann; Marion Broome; Erica R Pryor; Kim Wagler Ziner
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.381

5.  Identifying bioethical issues in biostatistical consulting: findings from a US national pilot survey of biostatisticians.

Authors:  Min Qi Wang; Alice F Yan; Ralph V Katz
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 2.692

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

Authors:  Erfan Shamsoddin; Leila Janani; Kiandokht Ghamari; Payam Kabiri; Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki; Bita Mesgarpour
Journal:  J Med Ethics Hist Med       Date:  2020-11-10

7.  A Cross-Sectional Survey Study to Assess Prevalence and Attitudes Regarding Research Misconduct among Investigators in the Middle East.

Authors:  Marwan Felaefel; Mohamed Salem; Rola Jaafar; Ghufran Jassim; Hillary Edwards; Fiza Rashid-Doubell; Reham Yousri; Nahed M Ali; Henry Silverman
Journal:  J Acad Ethics       Date:  2017-10-13

8.  Misconduct in research: a descriptive survey of attitudes, perceptions and associated factors in a developing country.

Authors:  Patrick I Okonta; Theresa Rossouw
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 2.652

9.  How should researchers cope with the ethical demands of discovering research misconduct? Going beyond reporting and whistleblowing.

Authors:  Knut Jørgen Vie
Journal:  Life Sci Soc Policy       Date:  2020-08-06

10.  Assessing research misconduct in Iran: a perspective from Iranian medical faculty members.

Authors:  Erfan Shamsoddin; Zahra Torkashvand-Khah; Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi; Leila Janani; Payam Kabiri; Ehsan Shamsi-Gooshki; Bita Mesgarpour
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.