باز طراحی و بررسی روایی وپایایی پرسشنامه درک و برداشت، نگرش و عملکرد در مورد سوء رفتارهای پژوهشی و عوامل زمینه ساز آن

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه پزشکی اجتماعی و خانواده، دانشکده پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مشهد، مشهد، ایران

2 گروه پزشکی اجتماعی و خانواده،دانشکده پزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مشهد، مشهد، ایران

چکیده

چکیده
هدف: با  توجه به رشد سریع علوم وچاپ فزاینده مقالات که به تبع آن سوء رفتارهای پژوهشی نیز افزایش یافته است، هدف از این مطالعه طراحی یک پرسشنامه جامع در خصوص بررسی سوء رفتارهای پژوهشی بود.
روش کار: بعد از جستجو ویافتن مطالعات مرتبط و بهره گیری از پرسشنامه‎ها و مطالعات مختلف و تماس با نویسندگان بانک اطلاعاتی سوالات طراحی گردید. بر اساس نظرات خبرگانی سوالات در هر حیطه از بانک انتخاب گردید و سپس روایی ظاهری، روایی محتوا و پایایی ابزار مورد بررسی قرار گرفت.
نتایج: پرسشنامه نهایی با تعداد 75 سوال  در سه حیطه مورد تایید قرار گرفت. سوالات در هرسه حیطه روایی محتوا و ساختاری مناسب داشته و ضریب اهمیت هر یک از سوال به تفکیک ارایه شد. پایایی ابزار با الفای کرونباخ محاسبه گردید که 77/0 محاسبه گردید که نشان دهنده پایایی قابل قبول پرسشنامه است.
نتیجه گیری: با توجه به سوالات جامع و روایی و پایایی قابل قبول این ابزار استفادهاز این ابزار برای مطالعات آینده پیشنهاد می‎گردد.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Reconstruction and assessment of validity and reliability of Perceptions, attitude and behavior research misconduct questionnaire and underling factor

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Khajedaluee 1
  • Fatemeh Moghaddas 1
  • Malihe Dadgar Moghaddam 2
1 Department of community and family Medicine, School of medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
2 Department of community and family Medicine, School of medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
چکیده [English]

Abstract
Introduction: Due to the rapid growth of science and the increasing number of articles that have led to increased research misconduct, the purpose of this study was to design a comprehensive questionnaire about research misconduct.
Methods:After searching and finding relevant studies, using available questionnaires and various studies, and contacting the corresponding authors of the articles, questions database were designed. Based on the expert opinion panels, the questions were selected from the database in each field and then the face validity, content validity and reliability of the questionnaire were examined.
Results:The final questionnaire was approved with 75 questions in three areas. The content and structure validity and the importance of each question was presented separately and was acceptable. The reliability of the tool was calculated with Cronbach's alpha, which was 0.77, which indicates the acceptable reliability of the questionnaire.
Conclusion:Considering the comprehensiveness, acceptable validity and reliability of this tool, this tool is recommended for future studies.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Validity
  • Reliability
  • Questionnaires
  • Research misconduct

مراجع

  1. Smith R. The trouble with medical journals. J Res Soc Med 2006; 99:115-9.
  2. Khajedaluee M. Research misconduct: cause of decrease in validity and reliability of researches results and the scientific community. Razavi Int Med 2018; 6:e68414.
  3. Kumar MN. A review of the types of scientific misconduct in biomedical research. J Acad Ethics 2008; 6:211-28.
  4. Lock S, Well F, Farthiny M. Fraud and misconduct in biomedical research. 3rd ed. London: BMJ Press; 2001. P. 264.
  5. Rennie D. Dealing with research misconduct in the United Kingdom. An American perspective on research integrity. BMJ 1998; 316:1726-8.
  6. Gilbert FJ, Denison AR. Research misconduct. Clin Radiol 2003; 58:499-504.
  7. Zhang M, Grieneisen ML. The impact of misconduct on the published medical and non-medical literature, and the news media. Scientometrics 2013; 96:573-87.
  8. Khamesan A, Amiri MA. The study of academic cheating among male and female. Ethics Sci Technol 2011; 6:5361.
  9. Ana J, Koehlmoos T, Smith R, Yan LL. Research misconduct in low-and middle-income countries. PLoS Med 2013; 10:e1001315.
  10. Nikpour H. Investigation of medical students’ opinions on research fraud in thesis and its frequency. [MD Thesis]. Kerman: Kerman University of Medical Science; 2004.
  11. Khadem-Rezaiyan M, Dadgarmoghaddam M. Research misconduct: a report from a developing country. Iran J Public Health 2017; 46:1374.
  12. Moghtaderi A, Dahmardeh M. Fraud and misconduct in medical research. Zahedan J Res Med Sci 2012; 14:1-7.
  13. Broome ME, Pryor E, Habermann B, Pulley L, Kincaid H. The scientific misconduct questionnaire—revised (SMQ-R): validation and psychometric testing. Accountability Res 2005; 12:263-80.
  14. Hafeez K, Khan ML, Jawaid M, Haroon S. Academic misconduct among students in medical colleges of Karachi, Pakistan. Pak J Med Sci 2013; 29:699.
  15. Quartuccio KE. Positive and negative attitudes and subjective norms toward plagiarism of RN to BSN students in an accelerated online program. [Doctoral Dissertation]. Ohio: Case Western Reserve University; 2015.
  16. Rose LL. Scientific misconduct: perceptions, beliefs, working environments, and reporting practices in the clinical research associate population. [Doctoral Dissertation]. Minnesota: Capella University; 2008.
  17. Gomez MS, Nagesh L, Sujatha BK. Assessment of the attitude towards plagiarism among dental postgraduate students and faculty members in Bapuji Dental College and Hospital, Davangere–A cross sectional survey. Environment 2014; 10:50.
  18. Nakhaee N, Nikpour H. Investigation of medical students’ opinions on research fraud in thesis and its frequency. Strides Dev Med Educ 2013; 2:10-7.
  19. Setamdideh M, Memarbashi A, Ghaderi L. Prevention methods and types of academic misconduct. Eur J Physical Educ Sport Sci 2016; 2:20-9.
  20. Saberi-Karimian M, Afshari R, Movahhed S, Amiri F, Keykhaee F, Mohajer F, et al. Different aspects of scientific misconduct among Iranian academic members. Age 2018; 36:26-7.
  21. Broome ME, Pryor E, Habermann B, Pulley L, Kincaid H. The scientific misconduct questionnaire—revised (SMQ-R): validation and psychometric testing. Accountability Res 2005; 12:263-80.

 

مجله دانشکده پزشکی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی مشهد
دوره 62، شماره 4
مهر و آبان 1398
صفحه 1581-1586

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار