ArticleMedical care2017
Psychometric Development of the Research and Knowledge Scale.
Article in Medical care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a multi-component intervention to promote participation of Black and Latinx individuals in biomedical research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2021Article
- A REDCap-based model for electronic consent (eConsent): Moving toward a more personalized consent.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
- Effects of a methodological infographic on research participants' knowledge, transparency, and trust.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany research participants are misinformed about research terms, procedures, and goals; however, no validated instruments exist to assess individual's comprehension of health-related research information. We propose research literacy as a concept that incorporates understanding about the purpose and nature of research.
objectivesWe developed the Research and Knowledge Scale (RaKS) to measure research literacy in a culturally, literacy-sensitive manner. We describe its development and psychometric properties. RESEARCH
designQualitative methods were used to assess perspectives of research participants and researchers. Literature and informed consent reviews were conducted to develop initial items. These data were used to develop initial domains and items of the RaKS, and expert panel reviews and cognitive pretesting were done to refine the scale. We conducted psychometric analyses to evaluate the scale. SUBJECTS: The cross-sectional survey was administered to a purposive community-based sample (n=430) using a Web-based data collection system and paper. MEASURES: We did classic theory testing on individual items and assessed test-retest reliability and Kuder-Richardson-20 for internal consistency. We conducted exploratory factor analysis and analysis of variance to assess differences in mean research literacy scores in sociodemographic subgroups.
resultsThe RaKS is comprised of 16 items, with a Kuder-Richardson-20 estimate of 0.81 and test-retest reliability 0.84. There were differences in mean scale scores by race/ethnicity, age, education, income, and health literacy (all P<0.01).
conclusionsThis study provides preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of the RaKS. This scale can be used to measure research participants' understanding about health-related research processes and identify areas to improve informed decision-making about research participation.
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.