ArticleBMC psychology2026
Design and validation of the perceptions of teacher authoritarianism in research scale (PTARS).
Article in BMC psychology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough certain factors limit students’ scientific production, one such factor, i.e., teacher authoritarianism during the preparation of research papers, has received little attention to date. Objective: To design and validate the Perceptions of Teacher Authoritarianism in Research Scale (PTARS).
methodThis research took the form of an instrumental study, in which 816 students and graduates from state and private universities located in the three regions of Peru participated voluntarily. The process by which the scale was constructed involved 10 stages, and the initial version of the scale consisted of 20 items. The data were subjected to descriptive analysis, exploratory factorial analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), alongside tests of measurement invariance and reliability.
resultsThe re-specification of the exploratory three-factor model, excluding items 7, 8, and 11 due to factorial complexity, significantly improved the fit indices. This was reflected in a reduction of the RMSEA from 0.274 to 0.067 and an increase of the CFI to 0.997. Subsequently, in the confirmatory factor analysis, the final 10-item model (Model 5) demonstrated excellent fit (χ² = 47.81, RMSEA = 0.02) and high internal consistency (ω ≥ 0.90 for all factors). In the invariance analysis, the configural model showed no differences exceeding the established cut-off points (ΔRMSEA < .015; ΔCFI ≤ .010), supporting the stability of the model across different gender groups.
conclusionThis study represents an important step in the process of evaluating teacher authoritarianism during the preparation of research papers; therefore, the PTARS serves as a tool that, according to the results of this research, is both valid and reliable.
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.