ArticleJournal of education and health promotion2024
Awareness of plagiarism: Adaption, validity, and reliability of questionnaires in Iranian medical sciences for post-graduate students.
Article in Journal of education and health promotion, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcademic plagiarism affects the ethical aspects of research and can be in relation with valid health information distribution. The aim of this research is designing, validating, and standardizing the plagiarism awareness questionnaire for awareness of plagiarism. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study is cross-sectional and was done in medical sciences post-graduate students. Adaption, validity, and reliability were done. The validation population were 11 experts (one linguistics and ten medical library and information sciences). The reliability population includes 333 post-graduate students in Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences in 2022. Cultural adaption, face and content validity, reliability (exploratory and confirmed factor analysis), and correlation (Pearson coefficient) were checked using SPSS and Amos software ver24.
resultsCultural adaption was confirmed based on the experts' viewpoint using translation and re-translation. The CVR was 0.81, and content validity was confirmed. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted for a model with six factors and 30 items. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a model with six factors and 28 items (items 3 and 29 were removed). Cronbach's alpha was 0.86. The plagiarism awareness model (PAM) has six factors, "authenticating", "citing", "understanding", "insight", "paraphrasing", and "attitude", which can explain 54.353% of variances. IFI = 0.759, CFI = 0.755, NFI = 0.717, AGFI = 0.789, GFI = 0.826, and RMSEA = 0.073, and the PAM model was confirmed. The results of Pearson correlation showed a significant correlation between all factors.
conclusionThe PAM model has six factors and 28 items and was confirmed for plagiarism awareness study. This model can be considered by managers and can be used in health promotion research studies. PAPER TYPE: Research Article.
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.