M Nejatifar , H Soori, M Ghaffari,
Volume 13, Issue 2 (9-2017)
Abstract
Background and Objectives: A feasible and cost-effective tool is required to investigate young children' behaviors with regard to the risk of injury. The aim of this study was to assess the psychometrics of the Persian version of the Injury Behavior Checklist (IBC).
Methods: After validating the translation (backward-forward translation), the final version of the checklist was developed through content analysis and face validity and according to the comments of a panel of experts. The final version was distributed among 300 mothers of children aged 2-5 years referring to the kindergartens of Tehran. Convergent validity was evaluated by internal consistency through calculation of Cronbach's alpha coefficient, as well as item-total correlation. The reliability of the checklist was assessed through the test-retest method with participating 55 mothers and comparison of the scores of the two steps by correlation coefficient and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results: The content validity ratio was acceptable (0.6-1) for 100% of the items, and the content validity index was 0.93 for relevancy and clarity and 0.92 for simplicity. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.87. All 24 items of the IBC were acceptably and directly correlated with the total score of the tool (r=0.25-0.65). Reliability results also confirmed the test-retest reliability of the Persian version of the IBC (r=0.90; ICC=0.86).
Conclusion: The Persian version of the IBC is a reliable tool for investigation of risk taking and its association with different injuries in children aged 2-5 years.
M Jamalian, S Kheiri,
Volume 14, Issue 4 (3-2019)
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Randomization is one of the principles of correct clinical trial. The aim of this study was to determine the quality of randomization in the published articles of clinical trials in the Persian-language journals indexed in Scopus.
ed in Scopus D
Methods: In this cross-sectional study, all clinical trials published in Persian journals indexed in Scopus during 2013-2017 were evaluated in terms of randomization using the Jadad scale. The score of the randomization item of this scale ranges from 0 to 2, with 0, 1, and 2 indicating poor, moderate, and good quality.
Results: A total of 452 articles were evaluated. Random allocation was indicated in 423 articles (93.6%). Simple random assignment and blocked methods were used in 42.8% and 22% of randomizations, respectively. The randomization method was unknown in 34% and an incorrect method was used for randomization in 5.3% of the articles. According to the Jadad scale, 56.4% of the articles had good, 36.9% had moderate, and 6.6% had poor quality in terms of randomization. Methodologists were consulted in 40.7% of the articles, and their contributions led to increased transparency in the randomization report (P = 0.007).
Conclusion: The randomization method and its report are missing in many clinical trials. Therefore, considering the importance of randomization in validating the results of these studies, journals editors and researchers should pay attention to the quality of randomization and its report.
