Developing a Framework for Assessing Responsible Conduct of Research Education Programs

Olson, Lynne

doi:10.1007/s11948-010-9196-4

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers’ decisions directly affect the accuracy of data, the protection of research subjects, the quality of collaborations, and the objectivity of peer review, among other things (Shamoo and Resnik 2015 ; Steneck 2007 ). When unprofessional decisions are made, suffering can be caused to research subjects, staff, colleagues, institutions, science, and the broader society (De Cremer and van Dijk 2003 ; Olson 2010 ). Furthermore, professionals’ decisions, and the thinking patterns underlying them, affect their own work productivity, career success, and overall well-being (Dolbier et al 2001 ; Marques-Quinteiro and Curral 2012 ; Roche et al 2014 ; Spreitzer et al 2005 ).…”

Section: The Importance Of Professional Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Professional Decision-Making in Research (PDR): The Validity of a New Measure

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we report on the development and validity of the Professional Decision-Making in Research (PDR) measure, a vignette-based test that examines decision-making strategies used by investigators when confronted with challenging situations in the context of empirical research. The PDR was administered online with a battery of validity measures to a group of NIH-funded researchers and research trainees who were diverse in terms of age, years of experience, types of research, and race. The PDR demonstrated adequate reliability (alpha = .84) and parallel form correlation (r = .70). As hypothesized, the PDR was significantly negatively correlated with narcissism, cynicism, moral disengagement, and compliance disengagement; it was not correlated with socially desirable responding. In regression analysis, the strongest predictors of higher PDR scores were low compliance disengagement, speaking English as a native language, conducting clinical research with human subjects, and low levels of narcissism. Given that the PDR was written at an eighth grade reading level to be suitable for use with English as a second language participants and that only one-fourth of items focused on clinical research, further research into the possible roles of culture and research ethics training across specialties is warranted. This initial validity study demonstrates the potential usefulness of the PDR as an educational outcome assessment measure and a research instrument for studies on professionalism and integrity in research.

show abstract

Section: The Importance Of Professional Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Professional Decision-Making in Research (PDR): The Validity of a New Measure

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For institutions, noncompliance can involve spending enormous amounts of time and money on investigations, paying fines, and having research programs suspended. Institutions invest heavily in compliance education because federal sentencing guidelines for institutions provide reduced penalties for institutions that have an effective and vital compliance program, including effective compliance training (Grant et al 1999; Olson 2010). For investigators, noncompliance can lead to suspension of protocols, loss of research privileges, loss of privileges to obtain government funding, and prohibitions from publishing data (Neely et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compliance Disengagement in Research: Development and Validation of a New Measure

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the world of research, compliance with research regulations is not the same as ethics, but it is closely related. One could say that compliance is how most societies with advanced research programs operationalize many ethical obligations. This paper reports on the development of the How I Think about Research (HIT-Res) questionnaire, which is an adaptation of the How I Think (HIT) questionnaire that examines the use of cognitive distortions to justify antisocial behaviors. Such an adaptation was justified based on a review of the literature on mechanisms of moral disengagement and self-serving biases, which are used by individuals with normal personalities in a variety of contexts, including research. The HIT-Res adapts all items to refer to matters of research compliance and integrity rather than antisocial behaviors. The HIT-Res was administered as part of a battery of tests to 300 researchers and trainees funded by the US National Institutes of Health. The HIT-Res demonstrated excellent reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .92). Construct validity was established by the correlation of the HIT-Res with measures of moral disengagement (r = .75), cynicism (r = .51), and professional decision-making in research (r = −.36). The HIT-Res will enrich the set of assessment tools available to instructors in the responsible conduct of research and to researchers who seek to understand the factors that influence research integrity.

show abstract

“…In a context of mutual exclusivity, before promoting one teaching approach over the other, their efficiency must be clarified. Knowledge-related training is easily assessable, and its impact on researchers' knowledge can be evaluated in the short term [ 31 ]. Virtue-related training is still underdeveloped, and further empirical work is needed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study

Pizzolato

Dierickx

2021

BMC Med Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Even though research integrity (RI) training programs have been developed in the last decades, it is argued that current training practices are not always able to increase RI-related awareness within the scientific community. Defining and understanding the capacities and lacunas of existing RI training are becoming extremely important for developing up-to-date educational practices to tackle present-day challenges. Recommendations on how to implement RI education have been primarily made by selected people with specific RI-related expertise. Those recommendations were developed mainly without consulting a broader audience with no specific RI expertise. Moreover, the academic literature lacks qualitative studies on RI training practices. For these reasons, performing in-depth focus groups with non-RI expert stakeholders are of a primary necessity to understand and outline how RI education should be implemented. Methods In this qualitative analysis, different focus groups were conducted to examine stakeholders’ perspectives on RI training practices. Five stakeholders' groups, namely publishers and peer reviewers, researchers on RI, RI trainers, PhDs and postdoctoral researchers, and research administrators working within academia, have been identified to have a broader overview of state of the art. Results A total of 39 participants participated in five focus group sessions. Eight training-related themes were highlighted during the focus group discussions. The training goals, timing and frequency, customisation, format and teaching approach, mentoring, compulsoriness, certification and evaluation, and RI-related responsibilities were discussed. Although confirming what was already proposed by research integrity experts in terms of timing, frequency, duration, and target audience in organising RI education, participants proposed other possible implementations strategies concerning the teaching approach, researchers' obligations, and development an evaluation-certification system. Conclusions This research aims to be a starting point for a better understanding of necessary, definitive, and consistent ways of structuring RI education. The research gives an overview of what has to be considered needed in planning RI training sessions regarding objectives, organisation, and teaching approach.

show abstract

Developing a Framework for Assessing Responsible Conduct of Research Education Programs

Cited by 8 publications

References 9 publications

Professional Decision-Making in Research (PDR): The Validity of a New Measure

Professional Decision-Making in Research (PDR): The Validity of a New Measure

Compliance Disengagement in Research: Development and Validation of a New Measure

Stakeholders' perspectives on research integrity training practices: a qualitative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About