Melchior Florian, Angelidou Ioanna Antigoni, Chorianopoulou Maria, Teichmann Birgit
Network Aging Research (NAR), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of Philosophy, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Front Genet. 2025 May 13;16:1594724. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2025.1594724. eCollection 2025.
Advancements in life sciences have significantly boosted biomedical capabilities. Genetic testing forecasts hereditary traits and disease susceptibility, while CRISPR/Cas allows permanent genome alterations. However, ethical considerations arise regarding the morality of these capabilities, particularly concerning the moral status, autonomy, and privacy of living beings. The lack of valid instruments to assess moral judgment in genetic technologies highlights the need for this study, aiming to translate and validate the "Genetic Technologies Questionnaire" (GTQ) and the short version of the "Conventional Technologies Questionnaire" (CTQ5) into Greek. As the full version of the GTQ with 30 questions could be too extensive for some studies, we also tested other versions: The short versions GTQ20-GR and GTQ5-GR which were already presented in the original study, as well as a version which included questions solely about humans (GTQ-H-GR) and is intended for use in human research and therapy, and the GTQ-Moral Status (GTQ-MS-GR), which included questions about genetic testing and gene editing in different living beings to investigate differences in moral status.
A cross-sectional study involved 250 participants who completed an online questionnaire, assessing internal consistency, structural validity, known-groups validity, floor/ceiling effects, and retest reliability (subset of 50 participants). Correlational analyses explored relationships with education, age, genetic knowledge, religiosity, and genetic testing experience. The study followed the STROBE checklist for reporting.
The GTQ-GR (Cronbach's α = 0.929) and GTQ20-GR (α = 0.935) exhibit high reliability and stability in assessing moral judgment among lay people, whereas the GTQ5-GR (α = 0.866) and CTQ5-GR (α = 0.758) displayed some weaknesses. Participants tended to rate conventional technologies more favorably than genetic technologies, with genetic testing perceived more positively than genome editing. The two additional derived versions, GTQ-H-GR (α = 0.859) and GTQ-MS-GR (α = 0.787), also demonstrated solid psychometric characteristics.
The GTQ-GR is a valid and reliable questionnaire with strong psychometric properties and is now available in Greek.
生命科学的进步显著提升了生物医学能力。基因检测可预测遗传特征和疾病易感性，而CRISPR/Cas技术则能实现对基因组的永久性改变。然而，这些能力的道德性引发了伦理考量，特别是涉及生物的道德地位、自主性和隐私方面。缺乏评估基因技术中道德判断的有效工具凸显了本研究的必要性，该研究旨在将《基因技术问卷》（GTQ）和《传统技术问卷简版》（CTQ5）翻译成希腊语并进行验证。由于包含30个问题的GTQ完整版对某些研究来说可能过于冗长，我们还测试了其他版本：原始研究中已出现的简版GTQ20 - GR和GTQ5 - GR，以及一个仅包含关于人类问题的版本（GTQ - H - GR），该版本旨在用于人类研究和治疗，还有GTQ - 道德地位（GTQ - MS - GR），其中包含关于不同生物的基因检测和基因编辑的问题，以研究道德地位的差异。
一项横断面研究涉及250名参与者，他们完成了一份在线问卷，评估内部一致性、结构效度、已知群体效度、地板/天花板效应和重测信度（50名参与者的子集）。相关性分析探讨了与教育程度、年龄、基因知识、宗教信仰和基因检测经验的关系。该研究遵循STROBE清单进行报告。
GTQ - GR（克朗巴哈α系数 = 0.929）和GTQ20 - GR（α = 0.935）在评估非专业人士的道德判断方面表现出高可靠性和稳定性，而GTQ5 - GR（α = 0.866）和CTQ5 - GR（α = 0.758）则显示出一些弱点。参与者对传统技术的评价往往比对基因技术更有利，基因检测比基因组编辑的评价更积极。另外两个衍生版本，GTQ - H - GR（α = 0.859）和GTQ - MS - GR（α = 0.787），也表现出良好的心理测量特征。
GTQ - GR是一份有效且可靠的问卷，具有强大的心理测量特性，现已提供希腊语版本。
