Content Validation of the Organizational Climate for Research Integrity (OCRI) Survey

Thrush, Carol R.; Putten, Jim Vander; Rapp, Carla Gene; Pearson, L. Carolyn; Berry, Katherine; O’Sullivan, Patricia

doi:10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.35

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Asking participants to rate the 34 proposed behaviors as ''must evaluate'' ''should evaluate'', ''nice to evaluate'', ''not important to evaluate'', ''not observable'' or ''not comfortable assessing'' could be considered a conservative correlate to a Content Validity Index (CVI) (Davis 1992;Polit et al 2007;Thrush et al 2007). Given that a CVI typically has a cut off of 80% of responses falling in the top two response categories (typically ''quite relevant'' and ''very relevant'' scale items; rated on a four point scale), it was felt that an a priori cut off point of 75% of responses falling in the top two response categories (''must'' and ''should evaluate'') of a 6-option response scale would be a conservative cut-off point for a rather large representative sample population (40 clinicians and 13 medical students).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Survey Monkey, a web-based survey tool, was used to distribute the scale items and a modified Content Validity Index (Polit et al 2007;Thrush et al 2007) was used. Participants were asked to rate each of the 34 behaviors as ''must evaluate'', ''should evaluate'', ''nice to evaluate'', ''not important'', ''not observable'' and ''not comfortable evaluating''.…”

Section: Facultymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Developing and piloting a form for student assessment of faculty professionalism

Todhunter

Cruess

et al. 2010

Adv in Health Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the impediments to teaching professionalism is unprofessional behavior amongst clinical teachers. No method of reliably assessing the professional behavior of clinical teachers has yet been reported. The aim of this project was to develop and pilot such a tool. Thirty-four desirable professional behaviors in clinical teachers were identified. Medical students (n = 13) and medical educators (n = 30) rated their importance and validity. Based on the ratings, 16 behaviors in 4 dimensions were included in an assessment form that was piloted in the Department of Pediatrics at McGill University, with medical students (n = 94) rating the professionalism of their clinical faculty (n = 20). One hundred and ninety forms were returned with between 1 and 22 evaluations per faculty member. Scores ranged from 25 to 48 (maximum rating = 48, mean score = 42.7, SD = 6.29). A generalizability analysis was conducted; internal consistency was 0.89, and reliability for a mean of 8.23 ratings per faculty member was 0.53. Inter-rater reliability for one item was 0.11, potentially due to the context specificity of behavior or low frequency of unprofessional behaviors. Exploratory factor analysis revealed 3 factors with eigen values over 1. Assessment of the professionalism of clinical teaching faculty appears to be feasible, acceptable and reasonably reliable. The explicit evaluation of professional conduct in clinical faculty could encourage the maintenance of professional behaviors and potentially decrease the effects of negative role modeling and positively affect the hidden and informal curricula.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Facultymentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing and piloting a form for student assessment of faculty professionalism

Todhunter

Cruess

et al. 2010

Adv in Health Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the time of the IOM publication, there were no gold-standard measures of institutional environments available to fill this need. In 2006, research by Thrush et al laid the ground work for development of a survey responsive to the IOM’s call for such a measure; and provided evidence of content validity for items designed to assess the organizational climate for research integrity in academic health center (AHC) settings(Thrush et al, 2007). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Validation of the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC)

2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Development and targeting efforts by academic organizations to effectively promote research integrity can be enhanced if they are able to collect reliable data to benchmark baseline conditions, to assess areas needing improvement, and to subsequently assess the impact of specific initiatives. To date, no standardized and validated tool has existed to serve this need. Methods A web- and mail-based survey was administered in the second half of 2009 to 2,837 randomly selected biomedical and social science faculty and postdoctoral fellows at 40 academic health centers in top-tier research universities in the United States. Measures included the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC) as well as measures of perceptions of organizational justice. Results Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded seven subscales of organizational research climate, all of which demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s α ranging from 0.81 to 0.87) and adequate test-retest reliability (Pearson r ranging from 0.72 to 0.83). A broad range of correlations between the seven subscales and five measures of organizational justice (unadjusted regression coefficients ranging from .13 to .95) document both construct and discriminant validity of the instrument. Conclusions The SORC demonstrates good internal (alpha) and external reliability (test-retest) as well as both construct and discriminant validity.

show abstract

“…A newly developed Korean Acupuncture Sensation Questionnaire validated by expert panel judgment has sufficient content validity for de qi (CVI > 0.80)19. Thrush et al20 developed and established the content validity of a 43-item fixed-response instrument designed to measure the organizational climate for research integrity in academic health centers and established that the instrument has an excellent content validity (CVI = 0.90). The items included in our lifetime sunlight exposure questionnaire were established with sufficient content validity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of a lifetime exposure questionnaire for use among Chinese populations

Lam

et al. 2013

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sunlight exposure questionnaire for use in the Chinese population was constructed based on extensive literature review and item suitability for measuring life-time exposure. The content validity index (CVI) was derived from ratings by, an expert panel to assess the item content and relevance. 650 population-based Chinese women completed the sunlight exposure questionnaire through telephone interview. To assess the questionnaire reliability, 94 women were re-interviewed after 2 weeks. 98.4% of the sunlight exposure questionnaire items were found to have valid CVI (>0.83). The Scree plot and the Principal Components Factor Analysis showed a two-factor construct was appropriate and no questionnaire item needed to be excluded. The questionnaire also had a good test-retest reliability (ICC: 0.59–0.93; k: 0.51–100). This sunlight exposure questionnaire was found to be adequate for measurement of life-time sunlight exposure among Hong Kong Chinese women.

show abstract

Content Validation of the Organizational Climate for Research Integrity (OCRI) Survey

Cited by 19 publications

References 58 publications

Developing and piloting a form for student assessment of faculty professionalism

Developing and piloting a form for student assessment of faculty professionalism

Development and Validation of the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC)

Development and validation of a lifetime exposure questionnaire for use among Chinese populations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About