ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2014
The assessment of publication pressure in medical science; validity and reliability of a Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ).
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptions of research experience during internal medicine training: insights from a national survey.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Validation of publication pressure questionnaire-revised into Chinese nurses from a university hospital.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Reflecting on motivations: How reasons to publish affect research behaviour in astronomy.PloS one · 2023Article
- Personally perceived publication pressure: revising the Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) by using work stress models.Research integrity and peer review · 2019Article
- Article
- Perceived publication pressure in Amsterdam: Survey of all disciplinary fields and academic ranks.PloS one · 2019Article
- Diagnostic Validity of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder - 7 (GAD-7) among Pregnant Women.PloS one · 2015Article
- Publication pressure and burn out among Dutch medical professors: a nationwide survey.PloS one · 2013Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine content validity, structural validity, construct validity and reliability of an internet-based questionnaire designed for assessment of publication pressure experienced by medical scientists.
methodsThe Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) was designed to assess psychological pressure to publish scientific papers. Content validity was evaluated by collecting independent comments from external experts (n = 7) on the construct, comprehensiveness and relevance of the PPQ. Structural validity was assessed by factor analysis and item response theory (IRT) using the generalized partial credit model. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated to assess potential correlations with the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization subscales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). Single test reliability (lambda2) was obtained from the IRT analysis.
resultsContent validity was satisfactory. Confirmatory factor analysis did not support the presence of three initially assumed separate domains of publication pressure (i.e., personally experienced publication pressure, publication pressure in general, pressure on position of scientist). After exclusion of the third domain (six items), we performed exploratory factor analysis and IRT. The goodness-of-fit statistics for the IRT assuming a single dimension were satisfactory when four items were removed, resulting in 14 items of the final PPQ. Correlations with the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization scales of the MBI were 0.34 and 0.31, respectively, supporting construct validity. Single test administration reliability lambda2 was 0.69 and 0.90 on the test scores and expected a posteriori scores, respectively.
conclusionThe PPQ seems a valid and reliable instrument to measure publication pressure among medical scientists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.