Validating the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Reporting in a low literacy adolescent population in Burkina Faso.

Karolin Kirchgaesser, Till Bärnighausen, Mamadou Bountogo, Ali Sié, Guy Harling

Abstract readValidation Study

In one paragraph

Article in Scientific 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.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Karolin KirchgaesserHeidelberg Institute of Global Health (HIGH), University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Till BärnighausenHeidelberg Institute of Global Health (HIGH), University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.

Mamadou BountogoCentre de Recherche en Santé de Nouna, Nouna, Burkina Faso.

Ali SiéCentre de Recherche en Santé de Nouna, Nouna, Burkina Faso.

Guy HarlingAfrica Health Research Institute (AHRI), KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. g.harling@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 210479/Z/18/Z

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Socially desirable responses to survey questions may be universal, but scales to capture the phenomenon are unvalidated in low-education and resource-limited settings. We therefore conducted a validation of the 16-item Balanced Inventory of Desirable Reporting (BIDR) short form in a two-round health survey of 1291 12-20 year-olds in rural Burkina Faso in 2017 and 2018. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the scale's designed dimensionality found poor fit (CFI = 0.50, TLI = 0.42, RMSEA = 0.10, SRMR = 0.08). Exploratory factor analysis of Wave 1 data suggested a novel 11-item, 2-factor structure, with all but two of the original scale's Self Deceptive Enhancement items discarded. CFA in Wave 2 using this novel structure gave poor fit indices (CFI = 0.62, TLI = 0.51, RMSEA = 0.10, SRMR = 0.07), test-retest reliability was low (ICC(A,1) = 0.06, Pearson's r = 0.06, R

Indexed as

LiteracyAdolescentBurkina FasoChildFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHealth SurveysHumansMalePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsRural PopulationSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultAdolescenceBurkina fasoSocial desirabilityValidation

Identifiers

PMID41214164

DOI10.1038/s41598-025-23145-1

PMCPMC12603020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.