ArticleBMC psychology2025
Development and psychometric evaluation of an earthquake risk perception tool in Iran: an application of the extended parallel process model.
Article in BMC psychology, 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
backgroundThere is a lack of a standardized questionnaire for accurately measuring disaster risk perception. This study aims to develop a risk perception questionnaire for earthquakes and evaluate its psychometric properties among the Iranian population.
methodsA two-phase development approach was utilized. In the first phase, items were generated through literature review and expert consultation. In the second phase, the questionnaire's psychometric properties were evaluated using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega, and Intraclass correlation coefficients.
resultsEFA identified five factors (susceptibility, severity, self-efficacy, response efficacy, and defensive responses) comprising 23 items that together explained 50.16% of the total variance. CFA demonstrated that the model had a good fit with the data (CFI = 0.918, RMSEA = 0.075). All reliability coefficients exceeded 0.70. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study successfully developed and validated a risk perception questionnaire for earthquakes, specifically tailored to the Iranian population. EFA and CFA demonstrated a well-structured model with good fit, while the reliability assessments confirmed the scale's consistency and stability.
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.