Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 7/2014

01-09-2014

The assessment of publication pressure in medical science; validity and reliability of a Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ)

Auteurs: J. K. Tijdink, Y. M. Smulders, A. C. M. Vergouwen, H. C. W. de Vet, D. L. Knol

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 7/2014

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

To determine content validity, structural validity, construct validity and reliability of an internet-based questionnaire designed for assessment of publication pressure experienced by medical scientists.

Methods

The Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) was designed to assess psychological pressure to publish scientific papers. Content validity was evaluated by collecting independent comments from external experts (n = 7) on the construct, comprehensiveness and relevance of the PPQ. Structural validity was assessed by factor analysis and item response theory (IRT) using the generalized partial credit model. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to assess potential correlations with the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization subscales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). Single test reliability (lambda2) was obtained from the IRT analysis.

Results

Content validity was satisfactory. Confirmatory factor analysis did not support the presence of three initially assumed separate domains of publication pressure (i.e., personally experienced publication pressure, publication pressure in general, pressure on position of scientist). After exclusion of the third domain (six items), we performed exploratory factor analysis and IRT. The goodness-of-fit statistics for the IRT assuming a single dimension were satisfactory when four items were removed, resulting in 14 items of the final PPQ. Correlations with the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization scales of the MBI were 0.34 and 0.31, respectively, supporting construct validity. Single test administration reliability lambda2 was 0.69 and 0.90 on the test scores and expected a posteriori scores, respectively.

Conclusion

The PPQ seems a valid and reliable instrument to measure publication pressure among medical scientists.
vorige artikel Measuring health-related quality of life: psychometric evaluation of the Tunisian version of the SF-12 health survey
volgende artikel Measurement properties of the Client-centered Care Questionnaire (CCCQ): factor structure, reliability and validity of a questionnaire to assess self-reported client-centeredness of home care services in a population of frail, older people
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
2.
Retzer, V., & Jurasinski, G. (2009). Towards objectivity in research evaluation using bibliometric indicators—A protocol for incorporating complexity. Basic and Applied Ecology, 10(5), 393–400.CrossRef
3.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.PubMedCentralPubMed
4.
Bedeian, A. G., Van Fleet, D. D., & Hyman, H. H. (2009). Scientific achievement and editorial-board membership. Organizational Research Methods, 12(211), 238.
5.
Bird, S. J. (2006). Research ethics, research integrity and the responsible conduct of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(411), 412.
6.
Glick, W. H., Miller, C. C., & Cardinal, L. B. (2007). Making a life in the field of organization science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 817–835.CrossRef
7.
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De, V. R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437–461.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Anderson, M. S., Martinson, B. C., & De Vries, R. (2007). Normative dissonance in science: Results from a notional survey of U.S. Scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(4), 3–14.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Miller, A. N., Taylor, S. G., & Bedeian, A. G. (2011). Publish or perish: Academic life as management faculty live it. Career Development International, 16(5), 422–445.CrossRef
10.
11.
West, C. P., Tan, A. D., Habermann, T. M., Sloan, J. A., & Shanafelt, T. D. (2009). Association of resident fatigue and distress with perceived medical errors. JAMA, 302(12), 1294–1300.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Prins, J. T., Hoekstra-Weebers, J. E., Gazendam-Donofrio, S. M., Dillingh, G. S., Bakker, A. B., Huisman, M., et al. (2010). Burnout and engagement among resident doctors in the Netherlands: A national study. Medical Education, 44(3), 236–247.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Shanafelt, T. D., Boone, S., Tan, L., Dyrbye, L. N., Sotile, W., Satele, D., et al. (2012). Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among US physicians relative to the general US population. Archives of Internal Medicine, 20, 1–9.
14.
van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2012). Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: A worldwide survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1282–1293.CrossRef
15.
Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2008). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
16.
Tijdink, J. K., Vergouwen, A. C., & Smulders, Y. M. (2013). Publication pressure and burn out among Dutch medical professors: A nationwide survey. PLoS One, 8(9), e73381.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
17.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRef
20.
Mplus user’s guide [computer program]. Version 6.12. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2007.
21.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists (1st ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
Muraki, E. (1992). A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16(2), 159–176.CrossRef
23.
Baker, F. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory (2nd ed.). College Park: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
24.
Glas, C. A. W. (1999). Modification indices for the 2-PL and the nominal response model. Psychometrika, 64(3), 273–294.CrossRef
25.
van Groen, M. M., ten Klooster, P. M., Taal, E., van de Laar, M. A. F. J., & Glas, C. A. W. (2010). Application of the health assessment questionnaire disability index to various rheumatic diseases. Quality of Life Research, 19, 1255–1263.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
26.
Preliminary manual of the software program Multidimensional Item Response Theory (MIRT) [computer program]. Version 1.01. Enschede: University of Twente; 2010.
27.
28.
Skrondal, A., & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (2004). Generalized latent variable modeling: Multilevel, longitudinal and structural equation models. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.CrossRef
29.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
30.
Schaufeli, W. B., & van Dierendonk, D. (2000). Utrechtse Burnout Schaal (UBOS), handleiding [Utrecht Burnout Scale, manual]. Utrecht: Swets & Zeitlinger.
31.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821–836.CrossRef
32.
Metagegevens
Titel
The assessment of publication pressure in medical science; validity and reliability of a Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ)
Auteurs
J. K. Tijdink
Y. M. Smulders
A. C. M. Vergouwen
H. C. W. de Vet
D. L. Knol
Publicatiedatum
01-09-2014
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 7/2014
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0643-6

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2014

Quality of Life Research 7/2014 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

The level of agreement between child self-reports and parent proxy-reports of health-related quality of life in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Brief Communication

Psychometric properties of the eight-item modified Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey based on Spanish outpatients

Erratum

Erratum to: The relationship between negative life events, psychological distress and life satisfaction: a population-based study

OriginalPaper

Psychometric properties of quality of life and health-related quality of life assessments in people with multiple sclerosis

OriginalPaper

Psychometric properties of KIDSCREEN health-related quality of life questionnaire in Iranian adolescents

Brief Communication

Comparing PROMIS computer-adaptive tests to the Brief Symptom Inventory in patients with prostate cancer