ArticlePloS one2024
Development of a new perceived injustice scale for Bangla speaking population.
Article in PloS one, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerceived injustice is a relatively novel psychosocial construct starting to get some attention among researchers studying health and mental health outcomes. In the context of the widespread perception of being a victim of injustice in Bangladesh, a gap in instruments measuring perceived injustice was evident. The novelty of the construct and lack of similar instruments necessitated the development of a new Perceived Injustice Scale for Bangla speaking population.
methodA three-stage approach was used to develop the instrument. A thorough review of literature coupled with interviews with the general population as well as professionals contributed to the conceptualization of the construct. A rigorous process of expert evaluation and item analysis resulted in the identification of the most suitable items.
resultsThe scale demonstrated a single-factor structure with adequate evidence of its reliability and validity. Reliability of the scale was assessed using internal consistency method (Cronbach alpha = .931; p< .01) and test-retest method (r = .837; p< .01). While validity was assessed using criterion-related validity (correlation with the Steel Injustice Inventory at r = .428; p< .01) and construct validity (correlation with the Perceived Stress Scale at r = .332; p< .01; and with the WHO Wellbeing Index at r = -.361; p< .01).
conclusionThe strong evidence of reliability and validity suggests the suitability of the scale for measuring perceived injustice in Bangladesh. Researchers and clinicians can use this 10-item scale with confidence in assessing perceived injustice among the general population.
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.