ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025
The genetic technologies questionnaire in the Greek-speaking population: the moral judgement of the lay public.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Moral judgment of genetic technologies: validation of the genetic technologies questionnaire in the German-speaking population.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Translation, validation, and comparison of genetic knowledge scales in Greek and German.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Advancements in life sciences have significantly boosted biomedical capabilities. Genetic testing forecasts hereditary traits and disease susceptibility, while CRISPR/Cas allows permanent genome alterations. However, ethical considerations arise regarding the morality of these capabilities, particularly concerning the moral status, autonomy, and privacy of living beings. The lack of valid instruments to assess moral judgment in genetic technologies highlights the need for this study, aiming to translate and validate the "Genetic Technologies Questionnaire" (GTQ) and the short version of the "Conventional Technologies Questionnaire" (CTQ5) into Greek. As the full version of the GTQ with 30 questions could be too extensive for some studies, we also tested other versions: The short versions GTQ20-GR and GTQ5-GR which were already presented in the original study, as well as a version which included questions solely about humans (GTQ-H-GR) and is intended for use in human research and therapy, and the GTQ-Moral Status (GTQ-MS-GR), which included questions about genetic testing and gene editing in different living beings to investigate differences in moral status. Methods: A cross-sectional study involved 250 participants who completed an online questionnaire, assessing internal consistency, structural validity, known-groups validity, floor/ceiling effects, and retest reliability (subset of 50 participants). Correlational analyses explored relationships with education, age, genetic knowledge, religiosity, and genetic testing experience. The study followed the STROBE checklist for reporting. Results: The GTQ-GR (Cronbach's α = 0.929) and GTQ20-GR (α = 0.935) exhibit high reliability and stability in assessing moral judgment among lay people, whereas the GTQ5-GR (α = 0.866) and CTQ5-GR (α = 0.758) displayed some weaknesses. Participants tended to rate conventional technologies more favorably than genetic technologies, with genetic testing perceived more positively than genome editing. The two additional derived versions, GTQ-H-GR (α = 0.859) and GTQ-MS-GR (α = 0.787), also demonstrated solid psychometric characteristics. Conclusion: The GTQ-GR is a valid and reliable questionnaire with strong psychometric properties and is now available in Greek.
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.