Literature DB >> 21460589

Measuring how people view biomedical research: Reliability and validity analysis of the Research Attitudes Questionnaire.

Jonathan D Rubright1, Mark S Cary, Jason H Karlawish, Scott Y H Kim.   

Abstract

With increasing numbers of studies on research ethics and a need to improve the recruitment of research subjects, the ability to measure attitudes toward biomedical research has become important. The Research Attitudes Questionnaire is a significant predictor of the public's attitudes toward and willingness to participate in research, yet limited data are available on its psychometric properties. This study establishes the scale's internal consistency and dimensionality using a large Internet-based sample from the United States. One item was removed due to a poor item-total correlation, and three additional items were removed which formed a reverse-wording measurement artifact factor. With improved internal consistency and dimensionality, the seven-item version has the advantages of shorter administration time and improved psychometric properties.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21460589      PMCID: PMC3253733          DOI: 10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.63

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  8 in total

1.  What patients say about medical research.

Authors:  Jeremy Sugarman; Nancy E Kass; Steven N Goodman; Patricia Perentesis; Praveen Fernandes; Ruth R Faden
Journal:  IRB       Date:  1998 Jul-Aug

2.  How do AD patients and their caregivers decide whether to enroll in a clinical trial?

Authors:  J H Karlawish; D Casarett; J Klocinski; P Sankar
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2001-03-27       Impact factor: 9.910

3.  A RATIONALE AND TEST FOR THE NUMBER OF FACTORS IN FACTOR ANALYSIS.

Authors:  J L HORN
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  1965-06       Impact factor: 2.500

4.  Is psychiatric research stigmatized? An experimental survey of the public.

Authors:  Jordana R Muroff; Sarah L Hoerauf; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2005-09-28       Impact factor: 9.306

5.  How redesigning AD clinical trials might increase study partners' willingness to participate.

Authors:  Jason Karlawish; Mark S Cary; Jonathan Rubright; Tom Tenhave
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2008-12-02       Impact factor: 9.910

6.  Comparative fit indexes in structural models.

Authors:  P M Bentler
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 17.737

7.  What do people at risk for Alzheimer disease think about surrogate consent for research?

Authors:  Scott Y H Kim; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Colleen McCallum; Pierre N Tariot
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2005-11-08       Impact factor: 9.910

8.  Older adults' attitudes toward enrollment of non-competent subjects participating in Alzheimer's research.

Authors:  Jason Karlawish; Jonathan Rubright; David Casarett; Mark Cary; Thomas Ten Have; Pamela Sankar
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 18.112

  8 in total
  40 in total

1.  Is Safety in the Eye of the Beholder? Safeguards in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability.

Authors:  Katherine E McDonald; Nicole E Conroy; Carolyn I Kim; Emily J LoBraico; Ellis M Prather; Robert S Olick
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2016-07-31       Impact factor: 1.742

2.  Disclosure of amyloid status is not a barrier to recruitment in preclinical Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.

Authors:  Joshua D Grill; Yan Zhou; David Elashoff; Jason Karlawish
Journal:  Neurobiol Aging       Date:  2015-11-22       Impact factor: 4.673

3.  Authorization of tissues from deceased patients for genetic research.

Authors:  Maureen Wilson-Genderson; K Laura Barker; Heather M Gardiner; Maghboeba Mosavel; Jeffrey Thomas; Laura A Siminoff
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 4.132

4.  What's the Harm? Harms in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability.

Authors:  Katherine E McDonald; Nicole E Conroy; Robert S Olick; The Project Ethics Expert Panel
Journal:  Am J Intellect Dev Disabil       Date:  2017-01

5.  Is It Worth It? Benefits in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability.

Authors:  Katherine E McDonald; Nicole E Conroy; Robert S Olick
Journal:  Intellect Dev Disabil       Date:  2016-12

6.  Improving informed consent: Stakeholder views.

Authors:  Emily E Anderson; Susan B Newman; Alicia K Matthews
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2017-08-02

7.  Impact of non-welfare interests on willingness to donate to biobanks: an experimental survey.

Authors:  Michele C Gornick; Kerry A Ryan; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2014-08-11       Impact factor: 1.742

8.  Effect of deliberation on the public's attitudes toward consent policies for biobank research.

Authors:  Tom Tomlinson; Raymond G De Vries; H Myra Kim; Linda Gordon; Kerry A Ryan; Chris D Krenz; Scott Jewell; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 4.246

9.  Why are spousal caregivers more prevalent than nonspousal caregivers as study partners in AD dementia clinical trials?

Authors:  Mark S Cary; Jonathan D Rubright; Joshua D Grill; Jason Karlawish
Journal:  Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.703

10.  "You can't be cold and scientific": community views on ethical issues in intellectual disability research.

Authors:  Katherine E McDonald; Nicole M Schwartz; Colleen M Gibbons; Robert S Olick
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2015-03-13       Impact factor: 1.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.