ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
Development and Psychometric Validation of a Knowledge Assessment Tool on Radiotherapy Resistance Among Oncologists in Iraq.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiotherapy resistance (RTR) is a significant barrier in oncology, affecting treatment outcomes and clinical decision-making. Despite its importance, no standardized tool exists to measure oncologists' knowledge of RTR. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive questionnaire to assess oncologists' knowledge of RTR. A 29-item questionnaire was developed following a multi-phase process. An initial pool of 45 items was refined through content and face validity assessments by a panel of 5 experts, leading to item revisions and deletions. Data were collected from 400 oncologists in Iraq. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted to establish construct validity, while Cronbach's alpha, Composite Reliability (CR), and Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis were used to assess internal consistency and item performance. EFA confirmed the eight-domain structure of the questionnaire, with factor loadings exceeding 0.70 for all items. CFA demonstrated good model fit, with indices of CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91, and RMSEA = 0.06. Internal consistency was high, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.93 and a CR of 0.94 for the overall questionnaire. IRT analysis revealed that all items had acceptable difficulty, discrimination, and guessing parameters, indicating that the items effectively differentiate oncologists with varying levels of knowledge. The final 29-item questionnaire covered key RTR domains, including Conventional and Combined Therapies, Radioresistance, and Sensitivity and Resistance. The validated 29-item knowledge questionnaire demonstrated strong psychometric properties, making it a reliable tool for assessing oncologists' knowledge of RTR. This tool can support oncology education, training, and research. Future studies should focus on cross-cultural validation, test-retest reliability, and examining how RTR knowledge influences clinical decision-making. This tool is especially relevant for improving oncology training and clinical decision-making in Iraq, where systemic barriers such as limited equipment, training gaps, and uneven access to radiosensitizers challenge cancer care.
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.