ArticleJournal of child & adolescent trauma2025
Localization and Psychometrics of the "Good/Bad Touch Questionnaire (GBT)" in Preschool Children: Persian Version.
Article in Journal of child & adolescent trauma, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Childhood, often associated with various forms of harassment, requires a tool to assess children's ability to recognize abuse. This study was conducted with the aim of localizing and evaluating the psychometrics of the Good/Bad Touch Questionnaire (GBT) in preschool children. This study conducted as a cross-sectional design, utilizing the multi-stage sampling method to select 82 preschool children from Ardabil city in the year 2023. Data collection was conducted using the GBT questionnaire. Initially, the questionnaire underwent translation, and for each question, individual calculations were made for the Content Validity Index (CVI) and Content Validity Ratio (CVR). The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed through internal and external consistency methods, in addition to the retest method, employing the Kuder-Richardson index (KR-21). The study participants had an average age of 5.74 ± 0.42 years. The CVR index exceeded the minimum acceptable level, as per Lawshe Table (0.42). The overall CVI index reached 0.901, surpassing the minimum acceptable value (0.79), indicating the appropriateness of the questions' content. Moreover, the entire questionnaire demonstrated reliability ( Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40653-025-00689-y.
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.