Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A precondition for reducing scientific misconduct is evidence about scientists’ attitudes. We need reliable survey instruments, and this study investigates the reliability of Kalichman’s “Survey 2: research misconduct” questionnaire. The study is a post hoc analysis of data from three surveys among biomedical doctoral students in Scandinavia (2010-2015). We perform reliability analysis, and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis using a split-sample design as a partial validation. The results indicate that a reliable 13-item scale can be formed (Cronbach’s α = .705), and factor analysis indicates that there are four reliable subscales each tapping a different construct: (a) general attitude to misconduct (α = .768), (b) attitude to personal misconduct (α = .784), (c) attitude to whistleblowing (α = .841), and (d) attitude to blameworthiness/punishment (α = .877). A full validation of the questionnaire requires further research. We, nevertheless, hope that the results will facilitate the increased use of the questionnaire in research.

Keywords

validation reliability dishonesty misconduct misconduct scale attitudes science ethics survey methods

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bedi

(2014). Medical research misconduct need regulatory reforms. Indian Journal of Community Medicine: Official Publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine, 39, 194-196.

Broome

M. E.

Pryor

Habermann

Pulley

Kincaid

(2005). The Scientific Misconduct Questionnaire–Revised (SMQ-R): Validation and psychometric testing. Accountability in Research, 12, 263-280.

DeVellis

R. F.

(2017). Scale development—Theory and applications (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

DuBois

J. M.

Chibnall

J. T.

Gibbs

(2016). Compliance disengagement in research: Development and validation of a new measure. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 965-988.

Fanelli

(2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738.

Fang

F. C.

Steen

R. G.

Casadevall

(2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 17028-17033.

Hofmann

Helgesson

Juth

Holm

(2015). Scientific dishonesty: A survey of doctoral students at the major medical faculties in Sweden and Norway. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: JERHRE, 10, 380-388.

Hofmann

Holm

(2016). Vitenskapelig uredelighet: Kunnskap, handlinger og holdninger hos doktorgradskandidater ved Universitetet i Oslo [Scientific misconduct: Knowledge, actions and attitudes amond doctoral students at the University of Oslo]. Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening, 136, 1442-1447.

Hofmann

Myhr

A. I.

Holm

(2013). Scientific dishonesty—A nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway. BMC Medical Ethics, 14, Article 3.

10.

Kalichman

M. W.

(2005). Surveys as a tool for training in scientific integrity. In Macrina

(Ed.), Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible conduct of research (pp. 297-320). Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology Press.

11.

Kalichman

M. W.

Friedman

P. J.

(1992). A pilot study of biomedical trainees’ perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine, 67, 769-775.

12.

Mavrinac

Brumini

Bilic-Zulle

Petrovecki

(2010). Construction and validation of attitudes toward Plagiarism Questionnaire. Croatian Medical Journal, 51, 195-201.

13.

Mulak

S. A.

(2009). Foundations of factor analysis (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

14.

Resnik

D. B.

Dinse

G. E.

(2013). Scientific retractions and corrections related to misconduct findings. Journal of Medical Ethics, 39(1), 46-50.

15.

Resnik

D. B.

Shamoo

A. E.

(2011). The Singapore statement on research integrity. Accountability in Research, 18, 71-75.

16.

Roberts

D. L.

St John

F. A.

(2014). Estimating the prevalence of researcher misconduct: A study of UK academics within biological sciences. PeerJ, 2, e562.

17.

Rust

J. R.

Golombok

(1999). Modern psychometrics (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.

18.

Shamoo

Resnik

(2014). Responsible conduct of research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

19.

Wester

K. L.

Willse

J. T.

Davis

M. S.

(2008). Responsible conduct of research measure: Initial development and pilot study. Accountability in Research, 15, 87-104.

Investigating the Reliability and Factor Structure of Kalichman’s “Survey 2: Research Misconduct” Questionnaire: A Post Hoc Analysis Among Biomedical Doctoral Students in Scandinavia

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References