ArticleBMC medical education2024
German translation and validation of the complementary and alternative medicine health belief questionnaire (CHBQ).
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Complementary and Alternative Health Belief Questionnaire (CHBQ) measures medical students' attitudes towards Complementary Medicine (CM). The aim of the study was to examine the validity and reliability of the German translation of the CHBQ.
methodsData for the psychometric evaluation of the German translation were drawn from a study that investigated attitudes towards CM in (a sample of) medical students at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Construct validity was determined via an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach's alpha and split-half reliability.
resultsThe CHBQ was returned by 278 students, and was fully completed by 260 students (mean age 23.7 years; ± 4.3 SD), 69.2% were female). EFA revealed a single factor solution for all 10 items of the scale. All items, except one, had good item discrimination (range: 0.5-0.8), acceptable mean inter-item-correlation (0.39) and similar median correlation (0.38). Reliability was very good (α = 0.86) and further confirmed by split-half reliability (0.91).
conclusionsThe German version of the CHBQ is a valid and reliable instrument for measuring students' attitudes towards CM.
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.