ArticleBMC public health2026
Design and psychometric evaluation of the Persian version of the Animal Bite Questionnaire for Children (ABQ-C).
Article in BMC public health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnimal bites are an important public health concern, particularly among school-aged children, who may lack adequate preventive knowledge and are vulnerable to risky interactions with animals. Reliable and valid tools are needed to assess psychological and motivational determinants of preventive behaviors to inform educational interventions. This study aimed to design and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Animal Bite Questionnaire for Children (ABQ-C) based on Protection Motivation Theory (PMT).
methodsA cross-sectional methodological study was conducted in 2024 among 400 elementary school students in Mashhad, Iran. Questionnaire items were developed through literature review and expert consultation. Face and content validity (qualitative and quantitative) were assessed by experts. Construct validity was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with AMOS software; exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was not performed. Reliability was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and Test-retest correlation over a 10-day interval among 30 students.
resultsThe final questionnaire included 28 items across eight constructs: perceived severity (4 items), perceived susceptibility (3 items), response efficacy (4 items), self-efficacy (6 items), fear (2 items), perceived response cost (3 items), protection motivation (4 items), and perceived rewards (2 items). CFA confirmed the adequacy of the model, with acceptable fit indices (χ²/df = 2.115, RMSEA = 0.053, CFI = 0.902, PNFI = 0.704, PGFI = 0.705). All items showed factor loadings above 0.40. Internal consistency was satisfactory (Cronbach’s α = 0.72–0.87), and test–retest reliability was 0.84 (ICC = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.71–0.91).
conclusionThe ABQ-C demonstrated good validity and reliability for measuring motivational constructs related to preventive behaviors against animal bites among school-aged children. This tool can assist researchers, educators, and health professionals in developing and evaluating targeted interventions for rabies prevention and animal bite control in school-aged populations.
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.