ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2021
A questionnaire-based study to develop an instrument measuring poor interest in biostatistics among postgraduate medical students and faculties.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt has been realized by senior researchers that interest in biostatistics is very poor among medical professionals. Knowledge of biostatistics plays an important role in medical research. Studies conducted about knowledge, attitude toward biostatistics by many researchers, but there were no works about factors in relation to it. Considering this gap, we tried to develop a new instrument. MATERIALS AND
methodsItem generation and questionnaire formation were done using focus group discussion involving seven experts from different departments of medical colleges. Face validity and content validity and pilot testing were carried out step by step. In estimating reliability, internal consistency measured after collecting data from 66 study participants. Data were collected through self-administered paper-based questionnaire where response in each item was in five-point Likert scale. Cronbach's alpha for reliability analysis was used.
resultsIn first stage, item generation through FGD, then face validity was assessed by senior faculties. Content validity was checked by Aiken's V index. In initial stages, with six items, Cronbach's alpha was 0.805. Scale mean and variance were 24.24 and 27.26. After final reliability testing, it became 0.866 with four items where scale mean and variance came to 15.85 and 16.38.
conclusionAll the six items were important factors. Reliability improved when knowledge in statistics in higher secondary level and biostatistics classes in PG course were eliminated as factors. More qualitative research is needed for better understanding of this concept.
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.