K. Gharagozli, F. Amini, E. Lotfalinezhad, Marziyeh Mirghafari, A. Delbari, Devender Bhalla
possible and hands-on we prepared a pool of items that possibly represent perceptions about self-esteem. After that, a series of discussions took place and items that were deemed to be most relevant in representing the perceptions of poor self-esteem in epilepsy were selected. While doing this, we followed the requirements of relevance, brevity, feasibility, readability, consistency of style and formatting, and clarity of the language. The content validity was assessed qualitatively by an expert panel of specialists from neurology, mental health, and public health. We used the responses from this panel to improve the items. Content validity index (CVI) was measured, and a CVI score higher than 0.75 was considered acceptable. The responses to each of the six epilepsy-related elements of self-esteem were dichotomous based on the patient’s subjective perception about the absence (score zero) or presence (score one) of those elements. Each patient’s self-esteem score was the sum of the total number of elements that were reportedly present among them, which were then averaged for the entire sample population as well males and females. higher the poorer self-esteem. Besides, we big five personality traits by using ten-item personality inventory.
{"title":"SELF-ESTEEM IN IDIOPATHIC EPILEPSY AND PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF GHARAGOZLI-BHALLA SELF ESTEEM IN EPILEPSY QUESTIONNAIRE","authors":"K. Gharagozli, F. Amini, E. Lotfalinezhad, Marziyeh Mirghafari, A. Delbari, Devender Bhalla","doi":"10.36964/irpj2357","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36964/irpj2357","url":null,"abstract":"possible and hands-on we prepared a pool of items that possibly represent perceptions about self-esteem. After that, a series of discussions took place and items that were deemed to be most relevant in representing the perceptions of poor self-esteem in epilepsy were selected. While doing this, we followed the requirements of relevance, brevity, feasibility, readability, consistency of style and formatting, and clarity of the language. The content validity was assessed qualitatively by an expert panel of specialists from neurology, mental health, and public health. We used the responses from this panel to improve the items. Content validity index (CVI) was measured, and a CVI score higher than 0.75 was considered acceptable. The responses to each of the six epilepsy-related elements of self-esteem were dichotomous based on the patient’s subjective perception about the absence (score zero) or presence (score one) of those elements. Each patient’s self-esteem score was the sum of the total number of elements that were reportedly present among them, which were then averaged for the entire sample population as well males and females. higher the poorer self-esteem. Besides, we big five personality traits by using ten-item personality inventory.","PeriodicalId":167025,"journal":{"name":"IRPJ: Intergovernmental Research and Policy Journal","volume":"376 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125371210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The journals boast their position to prospective authors through mainly the use of three arguments, including that they have an Impact Factor or CiteScore, are listed and indexed in popular databases, and can accomplish fast decision making. Everyone seems to be interested in speaking about the first two arguments, while no one seems to be interested about the third one, i.e. the demonstrated efficiency of a journal in their duty of publishing reviewed research findings on behalf of the authors.
{"title":"HIGH IMPACT FACTOR, HIGH CITE SCORE, LISTING IN MEDLINE, BUT WHAT ABOUT EFFICIENCY? PART-1","authors":"Devender Bhalla, Laurent Cleenewerck","doi":"10.36964/irpj2356","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36964/irpj2356","url":null,"abstract":"The journals boast their position to prospective authors through mainly the use of three arguments, including that they have an Impact Factor or CiteScore, are listed and indexed in popular databases, and can accomplish fast decision making. Everyone seems to be interested in speaking about the first two arguments, while no one seems to be interested about the third one, i.e. the demonstrated efficiency of a journal in their duty of publishing reviewed research findings on behalf of the authors.","PeriodicalId":167025,"journal":{"name":"IRPJ: Intergovernmental Research and Policy Journal","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123456335","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：