The authors would like to draw the reader's attention to some errors in the following article:

Najafi-Ghezeljeh T, Ekman I, Nikravesh MY, Emami A. Adaptation and validation of the Iranian version of Angina Pectoris characteristics questionnaire. International Journal of Nursing Practice 2008; 14: 470–476. doi:10.1111/j.1440-172X.2008.00722.x

In this article, some references were cited incorrectly. The authors apologize for any inconvenience. The pages and the corrections are listed in following:

  • On page 471, line 35 is cited incorrectly, the correction is—Hybrid instruments are created by ‘combining items from more than one established scale, or by combining items from an established scale with newly created items’ (p. 405).1

  • On page 471, line 38 is cited incorrectly, the correction is—When existing scales do not adequately cover all the issues of interest, or have questionable psychometric properties; creating a composite measure from more than one scale or developing new items to supplement a scale might be justified (p. 406).1

  • On page 471, line 43 is cited incorrectly, the correction is—New measures are those approaches that are developed with a specific research goal in mind (p. 404).1

  • On page 472, line 4 is cited incorrectly, the correction is—‘The Rose Questionnaire was introduced in 1962 as a validated and standardized method of measuring angina and myocardial infarction in population surveys' (p. 1009).2

  • On page 474, line 1 is cited incorrectly, the correction is—‘Measurement validity is specifically concerned with whether the operationalization and scoring of cases adequately reflect the concept the researcher seeks to measure’ (p. 529).3

  • On page 474, line 12 is cited incorrectly, the correction is—‘Construct validity refers to the extent to which a measure accurately reflects the variability among objects as they are arrayed on the underlying continuum to which the construct refers’ (p. 1584).4


  1. Top of page