AUTHOR=Melchior Florian , Beyreuther Konrad , Teichmann Birgit 

TITLE=Translation, validation, and comparison of genetic knowledge scales in Greek and German

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Genetics

VOLUME=15

YEAR=2024

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2024.1350308

DOI=10.3389/fgene.2024.1350308

ISSN=1664-8021

ABSTRACT=<p><bold>Introduction</bold><bold>:</bold> Advances in biosciences have significantly expanded our knowledge and capabilities in medicine and technology. Genetic tests can now predict hereditary predisposition or susceptibility to diseases, while gene-editing tools like CRISPR/Cas enable easy repair of disease genes in both somatic and germline cells, ensuring permanent genome correction. Despite these advancements, there is a shortage of valid instruments for studying the knowledge about these technologies. To fill this gap, our study aims to translate and validate various scales to effectively measure the public’s knowledge of genetics.</p><p><bold>Methods:</bold> A convenience sample of <italic>N</italic> = 567 (Germany <italic>n</italic> = 317, Greece <italic>n</italic> = 250) participants completed a Google Forms questionnaire between December 2022 and June 2023, which included the General Knowledge of Genes and Heredity (GKGH), Knowledge about Gene-Environment Interaction (KGEI), and Knowledge of Modern Genetics and Genomics (KMGG) questionnaires. Analyses included internal consistency, structural validity, construct validity, and retest reliability with a subset of <italic>n</italic> = 72 (DE) and <italic>n</italic> = 50 (GR). Correlation analyses and group differences were evaluated for gender, education, religiosity, age, prior experience with genetic testing, and preferences toward potential providers of genetic testing. This study used the STROBE checklist for reporting.</p><p><bold>Results:</bold> The GKGH exhibited low values in internal consistency and item analysis, along with a ceiling effect within the German group. However, it demonstrated good values in retest and construct validity. In the Greek group, all properties were highly satisfactory. The KMGG consistently displayed excellent properties across all analyses, whereas the KGEI only showed convincing results in construct validity and item analysis.</p><p><bold>Discussion:</bold> The GKGH and KMGG demonstrated strong psychometric properties with varying difficulty levels dependent on the sample, with the German sample demonstrating a notably higher understanding of genetic technologies. Despite displaying acceptable properties, the KGEI fell short of measuring what its title suggests. Participants’ level of education showed a significant correlation with knowledge of genetic technologies, and only in the Greek sample did experiences with genetic tests influence knowledge. Preferences regarding availability of genetic testing are comparable between the two countries, with variations influenced by factors such as age, gender and religiosity.</p>