Psychometric properties of Persian version of the research misconduct questionnaire (PRMQ)
Assessment of scientific misconduct is considered to be an increasingly important topic in medical sciences. Providing a definition for scientific research misconduct and proposing practical methods for evaluating and measuring it in various fields of medicine discipline are required. This study aimed at assessing the psychometric properties of Scientific Research Misconduct-Revised (SMQ-R) and Publication Pressure Questionnaires (PPQ). After translation and merging of these two questionnaires, the validity of the translated draft was evaluated by 11-member expert panel using Content Validity Index (CVI) and Content Validity Ratio (CVR). Reliability of the final questionnaire, completed by 100 participants randomly chosen from medical academic members, was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The final version was named Persian Research Misconduct Questionnaire (PRMQ) and consisted of 63 question items. The item-level content validity indices of 61 questions were above 0.79, and reliability assessment showed that 6 out of 7 subscales had alpha values higher than 0.6. Hence, PRMQ can be considered an acceptable, valid and reliable tool to measure research misconduct in biomedical sciences researches in Iran.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Integrity and misconduct in research. [Cited 2020 October]; available from: Accessed on: https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/report_commission_0.pdf
Sarwar U, Nicolaou M. Fraud and deceit in medical research. J Res Med Sci. 2012; 17(11): 1077.
Stern AM, Casadevall A, Steen RG, Fang FC. Financial costs and personal consequences of research misconduct resulting in retracted publications. elife. 2014; 3: e02956.
Stavale R, Ferreira GI, Galvão JAM, et al. Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: a systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions. PloS One. 2019;14(4): e0214272.
Gammon E, Franzini L. Research misconduct oversight: defining case costs. J Health Care Finance. 2013; 40(2): 75-99.
Michalek AM, Hutson AD, Wicher CP, Trump DL. The costs and underappreciated consequences of research misconduct: a case study. PLoS Med. 2010;7(8): e1000318.
George SL. Research misconduct and data fraud in clinical trials: prevalence and causal factors. Int J Clin Oncol. 2016; 21(1): 15-21.
Roberts DL, John FAVS. Estimating the prevalence of researcher misconduct: a study of UK academics within biological sciences. PeerJ. 2014; 2: e562.
Savvina O. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Contemporary Education, Social Sciences and Humanities (ICCESSH 2019): The prevalence of scientific misconduct and principles of the contemporary scientists. [Cited 2020 October]; available from: Accessed on:
Bik EM, Casadevall A, Fang FC. The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications. mBio. 2016;7(3): e00809-16.
Horner J, Minifie FD. Research ethics III: publication practices and authorship, conflicts of interest, and research misconduct. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011; 54(1): S346-62.
Baždarić K, Bilić-Zulle L, Brumini G, Petrovečki M. Prevalence of plagiarism in recent submissions to the Croatian Medical Journal. Sci Eng Ethics. 2012; 18(2): 223-39.
Bailey CN, Hasselback JR, Karcher JN. Research misconduct in accounting literature: a survey of the most prolific researchers’ actions and beliefs. Abacus. 2001; 37(1): 26-54.
Pupovac V, Prijić-Samaržija S, Petrovečki M. Research misconduct in the Croatian scientific community: a survey assessing the forms and characteristics of research misconduct. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017; 23(1): 165-81.
Rankin M, Esteves MD. Perceptions of scientific misconduct in nursing. Nurs Res. 1997; 46(5): 270-6.
Broome ME, Pryor E, Habermann B, Pulley L, Kincaid H. The scientific misconduct questionnaire—revised (SMQ-R): validation and psychometric testing. Account Res. 2005;12(4): 263-80.
Pryor ER, Habermann B, Broome ME. Scientific misconduct from the perspective of research coordinators: a national survey. J Med Ethics. 2007; 33(6): 365-9.
Tijdink JK, Verbeke R, Smulders YM. Publication pressure and scientific misconduct in medical scientists. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014; 9(5): 64-71.
Khadem-Rezaiyan M, Dadgarmoghaddam M. Research misconduct: a report from a developing country. Iran J Public Health. 2017; 46(10): 1374-8.
Hadji M, Asghari F, Yunesian M, Kabiri P, Fotouhi A. Assessing the prevalence of publication misconduct among Iranian authors using a double list experiment. Iran J Public Health. 2016; 45(7): 897-907.
Moghtaderi A, Dahmardeh M. Fraud and misconduct in medical research. Zahedan J Res Med Sci. 2012;14(1): e93606.
Ghajarzadeh M, Norouzi-Javidan A, Hassanpour K, Aramesh K, Emami-Razavi SH. Attitude toward plagiarism among Iranian medical faculty members. Acta Med Iran. 2012; 50(11): 778-81.
Saberi-Karimian M, Afshari R, Movahhed S, et al. Different aspects of scientific misconduct among Iranian academic members. European Science Editing. 2018; 44(2): 28-31.
Rashidian A, Joudaki H. Assessing medical misconduct and complaints in Iranian health system: a systematic review of the literature. Sci J Forensic Med. 2010; 15(4): 234-43.
Nekoei Moghadam M, Banshi M, Akbari Javar M, Amiresmaili M, Ganjavi S. Iranian household financial protection against catastrophic health care expenditures. Iran J Public Health. 2012; 41(9): 62-70.
Streiner DL, Kottner J. Recommendations for reporting the results of studies of instrument and scale development and testing. J Adv Nurs. 2014; 70(9): 1970-9.
Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006; 29(5): 489-97.
Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology. 1975; 28(4): 563-75.
Djalalinia S, Owlia P, Afzali HM, Ghanei M, Peykari N. A proposed strategy for research misconduct policy: a review on misconduct management in health research system. Int J Prev Med. 2016; 7: 92.
Khajedaluee M, Moghaddas F, Dadgar Moghaddam M. Reconstruction and assessment of validity and reliability of perceptions, attitude and behavior research misconduct questionnaire and underling factor. Medical Journal of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. 2019; 62(4): 1581-6.
Okonta P, Rossouw T. Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria. Dev World Bioeth. 2013; 13(3): 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00339. x.
|Issue||Vol 13 (2020)|
|Biomedical research; Psychometrics; Scientific misconduct; Research misconduct; Surveys; Questionnaires; Translation.|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|