Assessing attitudes toward research and plagiarism among medical students: a multi-site study.

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1186/s13010-024-00161-z
Andrija Pavlovic, Nina Rajovic, Srdjan Masic, Vedrana Pavlovic, Dejana Stanisavljevic, Tatjana Pekmezovic, Dusanka Lukic, Aleksandra Ignjatovic, Miodrag Stojanovic, Dragan Spaic, Nikola Milic, Aleksa Despotovic, Tamara Stanisavljevic, Valerija Janicijevic, Danijela Tiosavljevic, Natasa Milic
{"title":"Assessing attitudes toward research and plagiarism among medical students: a multi-site study.","authors":"Andrija Pavlovic, Nina Rajovic, Srdjan Masic, Vedrana Pavlovic, Dejana Stanisavljevic, Tatjana Pekmezovic, Dusanka Lukic, Aleksandra Ignjatovic, Miodrag Stojanovic, Dragan Spaic, Nikola Milic, Aleksa Despotovic, Tamara Stanisavljevic, Valerija Janicijevic, Danijela Tiosavljevic, Natasa Milic","doi":"10.1186/s13010-024-00161-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research involves the systematic collection and analysis of data to enhance understanding of a particular phenomenon. Participation in medical research is crucial for advancing healthcare practices. However, there has been limited focus on understanding the factors that motivate medical students to engage in research. Additionally, in the era of e-learning, the easy accessibility of online resources has contributed to a widespread 'copy-paste culture' among digital-native students, which is recognized in academia as plagiarism. Existing studies suggest that a contributing factor to the increasing prevalence of plagiarism is students' limited understanding of this act. The purpose of this study was to assess medical students' attitudes toward research and plagiarism, and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Attitudes Toward Research (ATR) and Attitudes Toward Plagiarism (ATP) questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a multicenter study conducted among medical undergraduate and postgraduate students attending the three medical universities who were involved in research. Students' attitudes toward research and plagiarism were assessed using the ATR and ATP questionnaires. The research instruments underwent translation and cultural adaptation in accordance with internationally accepted methodology. The psychometric properties of the ATR and ATP, including validity and reliability, were assessed. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the model's fit to the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The ATR and ATP questionnaires were completed by 793 medical students who were involved in research (647 undergraduates and 146 PhD students). Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.917 and 0.822 indicated excellent and good scale reliability for the ATR and ATP questionnaires, respectively. The five-and three- factor structures of ATR and ATP have been validated with maximum likelihood confirmatory analysis, and the results demonstrated an adequate level of model fit (TLI = 0.930, CFI = 0.942 and TLI = 0.924, CFI = 0.943, respectively). Medical students showed a high degree of positive attitudes toward research and favorable scores across all three domains of attitudes toward plagiarism. In multivariate regression models, age was found to be positively associated with favorable attitudes of research usefulness, positive attitudes, relevance to life subscales and total ATR scale (p < 0.001), while PhD study level was related to research anxiety (p < 0.001) and favorable attitudes across all three ATP domains (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Medical students who were involved in research showed a high degree of favorable attitudes toward research and plagiarism. Adjusting medical school curricula to include research courses would broaden the students' interest in scientific research and maximize their impact on the full preservation of research ethics and integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":56062,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine","volume":"19 1","pages":"11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11566133/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-024-00161-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Research involves the systematic collection and analysis of data to enhance understanding of a particular phenomenon. Participation in medical research is crucial for advancing healthcare practices. However, there has been limited focus on understanding the factors that motivate medical students to engage in research. Additionally, in the era of e-learning, the easy accessibility of online resources has contributed to a widespread 'copy-paste culture' among digital-native students, which is recognized in academia as plagiarism. Existing studies suggest that a contributing factor to the increasing prevalence of plagiarism is students' limited understanding of this act. The purpose of this study was to assess medical students' attitudes toward research and plagiarism, and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Attitudes Toward Research (ATR) and Attitudes Toward Plagiarism (ATP) questionnaires.

Methods: This was a multicenter study conducted among medical undergraduate and postgraduate students attending the three medical universities who were involved in research. Students' attitudes toward research and plagiarism were assessed using the ATR and ATP questionnaires. The research instruments underwent translation and cultural adaptation in accordance with internationally accepted methodology. The psychometric properties of the ATR and ATP, including validity and reliability, were assessed. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the model's fit to the data.

Results: The ATR and ATP questionnaires were completed by 793 medical students who were involved in research (647 undergraduates and 146 PhD students). Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.917 and 0.822 indicated excellent and good scale reliability for the ATR and ATP questionnaires, respectively. The five-and three- factor structures of ATR and ATP have been validated with maximum likelihood confirmatory analysis, and the results demonstrated an adequate level of model fit (TLI = 0.930, CFI = 0.942 and TLI = 0.924, CFI = 0.943, respectively). Medical students showed a high degree of positive attitudes toward research and favorable scores across all three domains of attitudes toward plagiarism. In multivariate regression models, age was found to be positively associated with favorable attitudes of research usefulness, positive attitudes, relevance to life subscales and total ATR scale (p < 0.001), while PhD study level was related to research anxiety (p < 0.001) and favorable attitudes across all three ATP domains (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Medical students who were involved in research showed a high degree of favorable attitudes toward research and plagiarism. Adjusting medical school curricula to include research courses would broaden the students' interest in scientific research and maximize their impact on the full preservation of research ethics and integrity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估医学生对研究和剽窃的态度:一项多站点研究。
背景:研究包括系统地收集和分析数据,以加深对特定现象的理解。参与医学研究对于促进医疗保健实践至关重要。然而,人们对促使医学生参与研究的因素的了解却很有限。此外,在电子学习时代,在线资源的易获取性导致数字母语学生中普遍存在 "复制粘贴文化",这在学术界被视为抄袭。现有研究表明,导致抄袭现象日益普遍的一个因素是学生对抄袭行为的理解有限。本研究旨在评估医科学生对科研和抄袭的态度,并评价科研态度(ATR)和抄袭态度(ATP)问卷的心理测量学特性:这是一项多中心研究,研究对象是三所医科大学中参与研究的医科本科生和研究生。使用 ATR 和 ATP 问卷对学生的科研态度和剽窃行为进行了评估。研究工具按照国际公认的方法进行了翻译和文化调整。评估了 ATR 和 ATP 的心理测量特性,包括有效性和可靠性。结果:参与研究的 793 名医学生(647 名本科生和 146 名博士生)填写了 ATR 和 ATP 问卷。Cronbach'sα系数分别为0.917和0.822,表明ATR和ATP问卷的量表信度极佳和良好。ATR 和 ATP 的五因子和三因子结构已通过最大似然法确认分析进行了验证,结果表明模型拟合程度良好(分别为 TLI = 0.930,CFI = 0.942 和 TLI = 0.924,CFI = 0.943)。医学生对科研表现出高度的积极态度,并在对抄袭行为的态度的所有三个方面都获得了良好的分数。在多元回归模型中发现,年龄与研究有用性、积极态度、与生活相关性分量表和 ATR 总量表中的积极态度呈正相关(p 结论:医学生对研究的积极态度与 ATR 总量表中的积极态度呈正相关(p 结论:医学生对研究的积极态度与 ATR 总量表中的积极态度呈正相关):参与研究的医学生对研究和剽窃表现出高度的好感。调整医学院的课程设置,增加研究课程,可以扩大学生对科学研究的兴趣,最大限度地促进他们全面维护研究伦理和诚信。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine
Philosophy Ethics and Humanities in Medicine Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine considers articles on the philosophy of medicine and biology, and on ethical aspects of clinical practice and research. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed online journal that encompasses all aspects of the philosophy of medicine and biology, and the ethical aspects of clinical practice and research. It also considers papers at the intersection of medicine and humanities, including the history of medicine, that are relevant to contemporary philosophy of medicine and bioethics. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine is the official publication of the Pellegrino Center for Clinical Bioethics at Georgetown University Medical Center.
期刊最新文献
Assessing attitudes toward research and plagiarism among medical students: a multi-site study. Ordinary defensive medicine: in the shadows of general practitioners' postures toward (over-)medicalisation. Intersectionality and discriminatory practices within mentalhealth care. The modern-day "Rest Cure": "The yellow Wallpaper" and underrepresentation in clinical research. Epistemic appropriation and the ethics of engaging with trans community knowledge in the context of mental healthcare research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1