AI Insight
This study examined whether restrictive copyright conditions on psychometric assessment scales, such as requiring royalty payments or prohibiting item modifications, limit their long-term scientific impact compared to freely available alternatives. Researchers analyzed MEDLINE citation trends for two restrictive scales, the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Mini-Mental Status Examination, against four permissive, free-to-use scales, finding that restrictive scales showed declining citation ratios over time while permissive scales maintained positive growth trends. The difference in citation trajectory slopes was statistically significant in six out of eight paired comparisons, suggesting that restrictive copyright terms progressively reduce a scale's relevance in the scientific literature.
Why it matters
Authors and institutions that develop assessment tools may inadvertently reduce the long-term reach and utility of their work by applying overly restrictive copyright conditions, and adopting blended copyright models that allow noncommercial and scholarly use freely while retaining commercial royalties could better serve both scientific progress and creators' financial interests.
by Robert G. Badgett, Sudha Xirasagar, Hayrettin Okut
Introduction
Copyright conditions can hinder the scientific and usage impact of essential assessment tools in healthcare, organizational psychology, and other fields. The stories of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) are well-documented. Despite decades-old recommendations to blend copyright restrictions of intellectual property when used for commercial purposes with permissive but distinct copyright terms for non-commercial and scholarly use, few authors of assessment tools do so.
Objective
To assess whether restrictive copyrights limit the long-term scientific impact of copyright holders (often medical schools/faculty), by inhibiting downstream use, research, and improvement of measurement tools by other researchers.
Methods
We compared MEDLINE citation trends of two restrictive surveys (requiring royalty payments, prohibiting item modifications) – the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) – against four free-to-use and adapt surveys. Our outcome was the annual, theme-relevant citation ratio of each survey since publication. The ratio was the number of publications featuring the scale name in the title or abstract divided by total publications addressing the original theme (purpose) of the scale. We performed paired comparisons of the most recent slopes of the annual citation ratio, pairing each restrictive scale with a permissive scale, totaling eight comparisons.
Results
The restrictive MBI and MMSE initially showed rising slopes of annual citation ratios, and a decline in later years with negative slopes. Further, the final slope segments for all four permissive surveys were positive, vs. negative for the restrictive surveys, the slope difference being statistically significant for six out of eight comparisons.
Conclusions
Restrictive copyright conditions on assessment scales risk undermining their long-term scientific and functional relevance. Previously recommended blended copyright approaches can facilitate survey creators’ revenues via commercial use royalties, while sustaining continued scholarly development and noncommercial usage to improve long-term relevance.