Do Undergraduate Student Research Participants Read Psychological Research Consent Forms? Examining Memory Effects, Condition Effects, and Individual Differences

Abstract

While research has examined factors influencing understanding of informed consent in biomedical and forensic research, less is known about participants’ attention to details in consent documents in psychological survey research. The present study used a randomized experimental design and found the majority of participants were unable to recall information from the consent form in both in-person and online formats. Participants were also relatively poor at recognizing important aspects of the consent form including risks to participants and confidentiality procedures. Memory effects and individual difference characteristics also appeared to influence recall and recognition of consent form information.

Toward Comprehension: Improving Informed Consent in Behavioral Genetic Research

“…In early analysis, it was found that only 14% of participants were able to recall the essential elements of consent, including potential risks from sharing personally identifiable genetic data and amount of monetary compensation offered for participation. A more recent examination of research participant comprehension of informed consent documents demonstrated similarly low rates of comprehension, ranging between 11% and 31% comprehension across a variety of informed consent points (Pedersen et al, 2011).…”

“…Further, this study is framed around behavioral genetic research to further the understanding of what methods are most effective for communicating information relevant to the informed consent process in this emerging and ethically challenging domain of behavioral genetic research. As an additional feature, this study examines comprehension of informed consent documents for behavioral genetic research immediately following the presentation of the information using cued recall measurements from previous literature (Ascheman, 2009;Pedersen et al, 2011;Batchelder 2012) as well as cued recall and recognition measurements one week after initial presentation. This approach provides additional insight regarding how well information regarding elements of informed consent is retained for behavioral genetic studies after a significant delay, which is particularly relevant as digitized genetic information may be stored and potentially used in future analyses as new technologies and methodologies emerge.…”

“…Experimental examination of comprehension in informed consent has seen far less research in the past twenty years than in the twenty that preceded it, but more recent work has demonstrated that comprehension is still an elusive, and increasingly critical, element of the informed consent process (Ascheman, 2009;Pedersen et al, 2011;Batchelder, 2012). More recent work on the informed consent process and the potential pitfalls of low levels of comprehension and document readability have focused in more specific areas, such as informed consent in psychotherapy (Handelsman & Martin, 1992;Wagner, 1998;Walfish & Ducey, 2007) and more recently how the informed consent process plays into the emerging field of integrated primary care (Hudgins et al, 2013).…”

“…The study was conducted as a 2(structure) x2(comprehension check warning) x2(length) between-subjects factorial design with each of the above features serving as a binary factor, either present or absent in each given cell (see Figure 1, page 34). This study is unique in that it manipulates new elements of an informed consent that has already shown very high rates of comprehension, whereas other studies have used well-established criteria such as word count and readability formulae (Ogloff & Otto, 1991;Pedersen et al, 2011).…”

“…This sample size was considered sufficient to detect medium main and interaction effects (d = 0.51, as defined by Cohen, 1988). A medium effect for purposes of this study would be considered a roughly 50% comprehension rate, compared to the literature-based standard comprehension rate of between 11% and 31% (Pedersen et al, 2011). A total of 216 participants took part in this study, divided equally among the eight conditions for a total of 27 participants in each condition.…”