Given the growing public concern and attention placed on cases of research misconduct, government agencies and research institutions have increased their efforts to develop and improve ethics education programs for scientists. The present study sought to assess the impact of these increased efforts by sampling empirical studies published since the year 2000. Studies published prior to 2000 examined in other meta-analytic work were also included to provide a baseline for assessing gains in ethics training effectiveness over time. In total,this quantitative review consisted of 66 empirical studies, 106 ethics courses, 150 effect sizes, and 10,069 training participants. Overall, the findings indicated that ethics instruction resulted in sizable benefits to participants and has improved considerably within the last decade. A number of specific findings also emerged regarding moderators of instructional effectiveness. Recommendations are discussed for improving the development, delivery, and evaluation of ethics instruction in the sciences.

Training is a costly investment. As such, it is of great interest to know the extent to which that investment is yielding a positive return. Recent meta-analytic efforts have observed that ethics training programs are, indeed, having a positive effect, leading to the conclusion that the programs are working. However, they have also uncovered considerable variability in the effectiveness of ethics training programs, which leads to the purpose of the present study-to review current practices in ethics training evaluation. Through this review of 243 studies, consisting of 380 ethics trainings, we identified major themes in evaluation practices and training design. The tradeoffs associated with these evaluation procedures and designs are discussed, along with directions for future research.

Increased investment in ethics education has prompted a variety of instructional objectives and frameworks. Yet, no systematic procedure to classify these varying instructional approaches has been attempted. In the present study, a quantitative clustering procedure was conducted to derive a typology of instruction in ethics education. In total, 330 ethics training programs were included in the cluster analysis. The training programs were appraised with respect to four instructional categories including instructional content, processes, delivery methods, and activities. Eight instructional approaches were identified through this clustering procedure, and these instructional approaches showed different levels of effectiveness. Instructional effectiveness was assessed based on one of nine commonly used ethics criteria. With respect to specific training types, Professional Decision Processes Training (d = 0.50) and Field-Specific Compliance Training (d = 0.46) appear to be viable approaches to ethics training based on Cohen's d effect size estimates. By contrast, two commonly used approaches, General Discussion Training (d = 0.31) and Norm Adherence Training (d = 0.37), were found to be considerably less effective. The implications for instruction in ethics training are discussed.

Despite the growing body of literature on training in the responsible conduct of research, few studies have examined the effectiveness of delivery formats used in ethics courses (i.e., face-to-face, online, hybrid). The present effort sought to address this gap in the literature through a meta-analytic review of 66 empirical studies, representing 106 ethics courses and 10,069 participants. The frequency and effectiveness of 67 instructional and process-based content areas were also assessed for each delivery format. Process-based contents were best delivered face-to-face, whereas contents delivered online were most effective when restricted to compliance-based instructional contents. Overall, hybrid courses were found to be most effective, suggesting that ethics courses are best delivered using a blend of formats and content areas. Implications and recommendations for future development of ethics education courses in the sciences are discussed.

No abstract