ArticleHealth science reports2025
Validation of a Scientific Authority Questionnaire for Faculty Members in Medical Science Universities: A Cross-Sectional Study in Iran.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. 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
Aim: The aim of this study was to validate the Scientific Authority Questionnaire (SAQ) from the perspective of faculty members in medical science universities in Iran, as they are entrusted with the responsibility of obtaining scientific authority in universities. Design and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, multivariate factor analysis was used to assess the factor structure of the SAQ. The study included 379 faculty members of Iranian medical science universities in the fourth planning region in 2023, and the research instrument was a 17-item SAQ. Explanatory factor analysis (EFA) with principal component analysis (PCA), promax rotation, and Kaiser index was performed to evaluate the factor structure of the questionnaire. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to confirm the EFA. Cronbach's alpha coefficient and intra-scale correlation were used to measure internal reliability. Results: The EFA and CFA results confirmed that the SAQ contained three factors and 17 items. The content validity of the items was high, as shown by the face validity results (CVR ≥ 0.81, I-CVI ≥ 0.84). Three principal components explaining 70.46% of the variance were obtained after PCA with promax rotation according to Kaiser criterion and eigenvalues. The principal indices in CFA were higher than 0.9, indicating a good fit of the model. In addition, the reliability of the SAQ was confirmed with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.95 and a test-retest reliability of 0.81. Patient or Public Contribution: No patients or the public were involved in this study. Conclusion: The SAQ is a contextually relevant, reliable, and valid tool for assessing faculty members' scientific authority. The results of the study suggest that universities need to strengthen their links with industry to build scientific authority. Nevertheless, the instrument needs further development to improve its robustness and address potential limitations. Psychometric studies should be conducted with new populations to ensure the applicability of the SAQ in different contexts.
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.