ArticleBMC medical ethics2023
Development and validation of a tool to assess researchers' knowledge of human subjects' rights and their attitudes toward research ethics education in Saudi Arabia.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Designing and validating a research questionnaire - Part 2.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearchers must adhere to ethical and scientific standards in their research involving human subjects; therefore, their knowledge of human subjects' rights is essential. A tool to measure the extent of this knowledge is necessary to ensure that studies with participants are conducted ethically and to enhance research integrity. Currently, no validated instrument is available for such an assessment. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to develop a reliable and valid instrument to assess researchers' knowledge of human subjects' rights in clinical settings, as well as a reliable and valid measure of their attitudes toward clinical research ethics education in Saudi Arabia.
methodsThe current study involves the development of a questionnaire about the rights of human subjects in research and the researchers' attitudes toward research ethics education. The content was developed based on an extensive review of research ethics guidelines. A panel of experts tested the questionnaire for face validity (n = 5) and content validity (n = 8). The reliability of the questionnaire was established by a split-half reliability coefficient and item analysis among a sample (n = 301) of clinical researchers.
resultsFace validity demonstrated that the questionnaire was quick to complete and easy to answer. The global content validity indices (S-CVIs) were greater than 0.78 for all questionnaire sections; the split-half reliability coefficient was 0.755 for knowledge items; Cronbach's alpha was 0.77 for researchers' attitudes, showing good internal consistency. The difficulty index ranged from 12.0% to 98.7% for all knowledge items. Most questions were at an acceptable level of reliability and discrimination criteria. The final version of the questionnaire contained 89 items, distributed as 15 questions on demographic and professional characteristics, 64 questions items on knowledge, and 10 items on attitudes.
conclusionsThe questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool to assess biomedical researchers' knowledge of human subjects' rights and their attitudes toward research ethics education. This instrument could help address the gap in researchers' knowledge of the rights and facilitate the development of educational intervention programs to set appropriate learning objectives.
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.