The validation of a questionnaire to delineate clinical research coordinator roles in China

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the roles of the clinical research coordinator (CRC) in clinical oncology trials. Design and Methods An E‐questionnaire that includes 10 sections with 155 items total and is based on the Clinical Trials Nursing Questionnaire (CTNQ) was designed to de...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Perspectives in psychiatric care 2020-07, Vol.56 (3), p.629-635, Article ppc.12478
Main Authors: Zhu, Wenbo, Zhao, Qing, Zhu, Hangju, Zhang, Junying, Han, Jing, Qing, Rong
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
China
Clinical Protocols
Clinical Trials as Topic - organization & administration
Coordination
Female
Humans
Male
Medical research
Nursing
Oncology
Professional Role
Psychiatric-mental health nursing
Quantitative psychology
Questionnaires
Reproducibility of Results
Roles
Surveys and Questionnaires - standards
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the roles of the clinical research coordinator (CRC) in clinical oncology trials. Design and Methods An E‐questionnaire that includes 10 sections with 155 items total and is based on the Clinical Trials Nursing Questionnaire (CTNQ) was designed to determine the conditions of demographics, competences, activities, and psychology for Chinese CRCs. Eighty‐two CRCs from three different provinces in China were invited to join this study anonymously. Cronbach's α and split‐half reliability were calculated to assess the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. Additionally, the Wilcoxon rank‐sum test was used to find the similarity and difference between the importance of the roles of CRCs and their frequency. The STROBE checklist for observational research has been following for presenting the research (see File S1). Findings Cronbach's α values of the Chinese version of the questionnaire for the frequency scale and the importance scale were .965 and .961, respectively. The split‐half reliability coefficients were 0.866 and 0.805, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficients of the subscales indicated that the correlation between each item and its dimension was greater than its correlation with the other components (P 
ISSN:0031-5990
1744-6163
DOI:10.1111/ppc.12478