The Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R)

Validation and psychometric testing

Marion E. Broome, Erica Pryor, Barbara Habermann, Leavonne Pulley, Harold Kincaid

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The overall purposes of this article are to report the development of a survey instrument, Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R) that elicits the perceptions of research coordinators managing clinical trials about the various aspects of scientific misconduct and to present the psychometric analyses for the SMQ-R. Methods: A panel of five researchers and research coordinators reviewed the original SMQ (Rankin and Esteeves, 1997) and suggested an additional 42 items based on the review of the literature and their own experiences in research. The SMQ-Revised (SMQ-R) consists of 68 closed-choice items in six sections and one section with 12 open-ended questions. The SMQ-R was sent to 5302 persons who were members of the Association for Clinical Research Professionals (ACRP) or subscribers to Research Practitioner, published by the Center for Clinical Research Practice (CCRP). Findings: Internal consistency of subscales was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and ranged from.83 to.84. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test construct validity of the instrument subscales. The factor structure was assessed with the principal factors method, using the squared multiple correlations as initial communality estimates followed by varimax (orthogonal) or biquartimax (oblique) rotations. Analyses revealed five distinct factors among three subscales. Construct validity for the SMQ-R was also assessed by testing hypothesized relationships using the known groups approach. Conclusion: The current effort demonstrated the usefulness of the SMQ-R in obtaining information from a national sample of experienced research coordinators about their perceptions of the prevalence of different types of scientific misconduct and of factors that influence the occurrence of misconduct. The psychometric evaluation of the SMQ-R suggests good internal consistency for most subscales and suggests adequate construct validity of the instrument as a whole. The analyses also suggest that further refinement of the instrument for future studies is warranted.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)263-280
Number of pages18
JournalAccountability in Research
Volume12
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2005

Fingerprint

psychometrics
questionnaire
construct validity
research practice
factor analysis
human being
evaluation
experience
Group

Keywords

  • Research integrity
  • Scientific misconduct

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Library and Information Sciences

Cite this

The Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R) : Validation and psychometric testing. / Broome, Marion E.; Pryor, Erica; Habermann, Barbara; Pulley, Leavonne; Kincaid, Harold.

In: Accountability in Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, 2005, p. 263-280.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Broome, Marion E. ; Pryor, Erica ; Habermann, Barbara ; Pulley, Leavonne ; Kincaid, Harold. / The Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R) : Validation and psychometric testing. In: Accountability in Research. 2005 ; Vol. 12, No. 4. pp. 263-280.
@article{c32ffebca16e49e6902a6ba85a778b99,
title = "The Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R): Validation and psychometric testing",
abstract = "Purpose: The overall purposes of this article are to report the development of a survey instrument, Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R) that elicits the perceptions of research coordinators managing clinical trials about the various aspects of scientific misconduct and to present the psychometric analyses for the SMQ-R. Methods: A panel of five researchers and research coordinators reviewed the original SMQ (Rankin and Esteeves, 1997) and suggested an additional 42 items based on the review of the literature and their own experiences in research. The SMQ-Revised (SMQ-R) consists of 68 closed-choice items in six sections and one section with 12 open-ended questions. The SMQ-R was sent to 5302 persons who were members of the Association for Clinical Research Professionals (ACRP) or subscribers to Research Practitioner, published by the Center for Clinical Research Practice (CCRP). Findings: Internal consistency of subscales was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and ranged from.83 to.84. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test construct validity of the instrument subscales. The factor structure was assessed with the principal factors method, using the squared multiple correlations as initial communality estimates followed by varimax (orthogonal) or biquartimax (oblique) rotations. Analyses revealed five distinct factors among three subscales. Construct validity for the SMQ-R was also assessed by testing hypothesized relationships using the known groups approach. Conclusion: The current effort demonstrated the usefulness of the SMQ-R in obtaining information from a national sample of experienced research coordinators about their perceptions of the prevalence of different types of scientific misconduct and of factors that influence the occurrence of misconduct. The psychometric evaluation of the SMQ-R suggests good internal consistency for most subscales and suggests adequate construct validity of the instrument as a whole. The analyses also suggest that further refinement of the instrument for future studies is warranted.",
keywords = "Research integrity, Scientific misconduct",
author = "Broome, {Marion E.} and Erica Pryor and Barbara Habermann and Leavonne Pulley and Harold Kincaid",
year = "2005",
doi = "10.1080/08989620500440253",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "263--280",
journal = "Accountability in Research",
issn = "0898-9621",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R)

T2 - Validation and psychometric testing

AU - Broome, Marion E.

AU - Pryor, Erica

AU - Habermann, Barbara

AU - Pulley, Leavonne

AU - Kincaid, Harold

PY - 2005

Y1 - 2005

N2 - Purpose: The overall purposes of this article are to report the development of a survey instrument, Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R) that elicits the perceptions of research coordinators managing clinical trials about the various aspects of scientific misconduct and to present the psychometric analyses for the SMQ-R. Methods: A panel of five researchers and research coordinators reviewed the original SMQ (Rankin and Esteeves, 1997) and suggested an additional 42 items based on the review of the literature and their own experiences in research. The SMQ-Revised (SMQ-R) consists of 68 closed-choice items in six sections and one section with 12 open-ended questions. The SMQ-R was sent to 5302 persons who were members of the Association for Clinical Research Professionals (ACRP) or subscribers to Research Practitioner, published by the Center for Clinical Research Practice (CCRP). Findings: Internal consistency of subscales was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and ranged from.83 to.84. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test construct validity of the instrument subscales. The factor structure was assessed with the principal factors method, using the squared multiple correlations as initial communality estimates followed by varimax (orthogonal) or biquartimax (oblique) rotations. Analyses revealed five distinct factors among three subscales. Construct validity for the SMQ-R was also assessed by testing hypothesized relationships using the known groups approach. Conclusion: The current effort demonstrated the usefulness of the SMQ-R in obtaining information from a national sample of experienced research coordinators about their perceptions of the prevalence of different types of scientific misconduct and of factors that influence the occurrence of misconduct. The psychometric evaluation of the SMQ-R suggests good internal consistency for most subscales and suggests adequate construct validity of the instrument as a whole. The analyses also suggest that further refinement of the instrument for future studies is warranted.

AB - Purpose: The overall purposes of this article are to report the development of a survey instrument, Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire-Revised (SMQ-R) that elicits the perceptions of research coordinators managing clinical trials about the various aspects of scientific misconduct and to present the psychometric analyses for the SMQ-R. Methods: A panel of five researchers and research coordinators reviewed the original SMQ (Rankin and Esteeves, 1997) and suggested an additional 42 items based on the review of the literature and their own experiences in research. The SMQ-Revised (SMQ-R) consists of 68 closed-choice items in six sections and one section with 12 open-ended questions. The SMQ-R was sent to 5302 persons who were members of the Association for Clinical Research Professionals (ACRP) or subscribers to Research Practitioner, published by the Center for Clinical Research Practice (CCRP). Findings: Internal consistency of subscales was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and ranged from.83 to.84. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test construct validity of the instrument subscales. The factor structure was assessed with the principal factors method, using the squared multiple correlations as initial communality estimates followed by varimax (orthogonal) or biquartimax (oblique) rotations. Analyses revealed five distinct factors among three subscales. Construct validity for the SMQ-R was also assessed by testing hypothesized relationships using the known groups approach. Conclusion: The current effort demonstrated the usefulness of the SMQ-R in obtaining information from a national sample of experienced research coordinators about their perceptions of the prevalence of different types of scientific misconduct and of factors that influence the occurrence of misconduct. The psychometric evaluation of the SMQ-R suggests good internal consistency for most subscales and suggests adequate construct validity of the instrument as a whole. The analyses also suggest that further refinement of the instrument for future studies is warranted.

KW - Research integrity

KW - Scientific misconduct

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748068143&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748068143&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/08989620500440253

DO - 10.1080/08989620500440253

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 263

EP - 280

JO - Accountability in Research

JF - Accountability in Research

SN - 0898-9621

IS - 4

ER -