Improving Comprehension of Consent Forms in Online Research: An Empirical Test of Four Interventions.

IF 1.1 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-14 DOI:10.1177/15562646251321132
Naomi K Grant, Leah K Hamilton, Jenalyn M Ormita
{"title":"Improving Comprehension of Consent Forms in Online Research: An Empirical Test of Four Interventions.","authors":"Naomi K Grant, Leah K Hamilton, Jenalyn M Ormita","doi":"10.1177/15562646251321132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Informed consent is a guiding ethical principle when conducting research involving human participants. Yet, consent forms are often skimmed or ignored, jeopardizing informed consent. In two experiments, we test four interventions designed to encourage participants to read online consent forms more carefully. Experiment 1 employed a 2 (length: short or long) by 2 (timing: fixed or free) by 2 (quiz: present or absent) between-participants design. We measured instruction-following and comprehension of the consent form. Results showed that fixed timing and a quiz led to greater instruction-following, but consent form length had no effect. Experiment 2 employed a 2 (length: short or long) by 3 (delivery format: live, audiovisual, standard written) between-participants design. Once again, length had no effect, but both live and audiovisual formats increased instruction-following and comprehension. We recommend that researchers consider using fixed timing, adding a quiz, and/or using alternative delivery formats to help participants make an informed decision.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"46-54"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12048739/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646251321132","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Informed consent is a guiding ethical principle when conducting research involving human participants. Yet, consent forms are often skimmed or ignored, jeopardizing informed consent. In two experiments, we test four interventions designed to encourage participants to read online consent forms more carefully. Experiment 1 employed a 2 (length: short or long) by 2 (timing: fixed or free) by 2 (quiz: present or absent) between-participants design. We measured instruction-following and comprehension of the consent form. Results showed that fixed timing and a quiz led to greater instruction-following, but consent form length had no effect. Experiment 2 employed a 2 (length: short or long) by 3 (delivery format: live, audiovisual, standard written) between-participants design. Once again, length had no effect, but both live and audiovisual formats increased instruction-following and comprehension. We recommend that researchers consider using fixed timing, adding a quiz, and/or using alternative delivery formats to help participants make an informed decision.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
提高在线研究中对同意书的理解:对四种干预措施的实证检验。
在进行涉及人类参与者的研究时,知情同意是一项指导道德原则。然而,知情同意书往往被略读或忽视,危及知情同意。在两个实验中,我们测试了四种干预措施,旨在鼓励参与者更仔细地阅读在线同意书。实验1采用2(长度:短或长)× 2(时间:固定或自由)× 2(测验:出席或缺席)的被试设计。我们测量了他们对同意书的理解程度。结果表明,固定的时间和测验能让学生更好地遵循指示,但同意书的长度没有影响。实验2采用2(长度:短或长)× 3(传递形式:现场、视听、标准书面)的参与者间设计。再一次,长度没有影响,但现场和视听形式都增加了指令遵循和理解。我们建议研究人员考虑使用固定的时间,增加测验,和/或使用替代的交付格式来帮助参与者做出明智的决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
期刊最新文献
Perspectives of Research Ethics Committees on the Challenges of Human Genomic Research Participation in Ethiopia. Informed Consent in Vulnerable Populations: The Case of Detained Persons with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. An Analysis of Institutional Review Board Policies for Enrollment of Adults with Impaired or Uncertain Decision-Making Capacity. Recruitment Techniques Used for Clinical Trials and the Potential Impact of Nudges: Qualitative Interview Study with Recruiters. Comfort of Sexual and Behavioral Health Survey Research Participation among Undergraduate Students: Findings from a Random Sample of a Southern University.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1