审查委员会提供的同意书范本的可读性

K. Riley, J. Mackiewicz
{"title":"审查委员会提供的同意书范本的可读性","authors":"K. Riley, J. Mackiewicz","doi":"10.1109/IPCC.2003.1245483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Institutional review boards (IRBs) often provide model consent forms for researchers to use or adapt when conducting human subjects research. However, the models themselves often far exceed the 8th-grade reading level recommended for consent forms, with many models measuring grade 12 or higher. In this paper, we look specifically at how muck and how, model consent forms deviate from the desired 8th-grade reading level, as measured by the Flesch Reading Ease formula and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level formula. We discuss quantifiable features measurable by these formulas and by text analysis features available in Microsoft Word (e.g., sentence length, paragraph length, and percentage of passive voice sentences). We outline plans to examine additional features such as nominalization, patterns in the flow of given and new information, and document design. Our findings are designed to help IRBs and researchers prepare consent forms that are more readable and, therefore, more in keeping with legal and ethical guidelines for human subjects research.","PeriodicalId":439913,"journal":{"name":"IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, 2003. IPCC 2003. Proceedings.","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Readability of model consent forms provided by IRBs\",\"authors\":\"K. Riley, J. Mackiewicz\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/IPCC.2003.1245483\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Institutional review boards (IRBs) often provide model consent forms for researchers to use or adapt when conducting human subjects research. However, the models themselves often far exceed the 8th-grade reading level recommended for consent forms, with many models measuring grade 12 or higher. In this paper, we look specifically at how muck and how, model consent forms deviate from the desired 8th-grade reading level, as measured by the Flesch Reading Ease formula and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level formula. We discuss quantifiable features measurable by these formulas and by text analysis features available in Microsoft Word (e.g., sentence length, paragraph length, and percentage of passive voice sentences). We outline plans to examine additional features such as nominalization, patterns in the flow of given and new information, and document design. Our findings are designed to help IRBs and researchers prepare consent forms that are more readable and, therefore, more in keeping with legal and ethical guidelines for human subjects research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":439913,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, 2003. IPCC 2003. Proceedings.\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, 2003. IPCC 2003. Proceedings.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2003.1245483\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, 2003. IPCC 2003. Proceedings.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2003.1245483","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

机构审查委员会(irb)经常提供同意书模型供研究人员在进行人体受试者研究时使用或调整。然而,这些模特本身的阅读水平往往远远超过了知情同意书中建议的8年级阅读水平,许多模特的阅读水平达到了12年级或更高。在本文中,我们通过Flesch reading Ease公式和Flesch- kincaid年级水平公式来考察模型同意书与八年级学生期望的阅读水平偏差的程度和方式。我们讨论了通过这些公式和Microsoft Word中可用的文本分析功能(例如句子长度、段落长度和被动语态句子的百分比)来测量的可量化特征。我们概述了研究其他特性的计划,如名词化、给定和新信息流中的模式以及文档设计。我们的研究结果旨在帮助审查委员会和研究人员准备更易读的同意书,因此,更符合人类受试者研究的法律和道德准则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Readability of model consent forms provided by IRBs
Institutional review boards (IRBs) often provide model consent forms for researchers to use or adapt when conducting human subjects research. However, the models themselves often far exceed the 8th-grade reading level recommended for consent forms, with many models measuring grade 12 or higher. In this paper, we look specifically at how muck and how, model consent forms deviate from the desired 8th-grade reading level, as measured by the Flesch Reading Ease formula and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level formula. We discuss quantifiable features measurable by these formulas and by text analysis features available in Microsoft Word (e.g., sentence length, paragraph length, and percentage of passive voice sentences). We outline plans to examine additional features such as nominalization, patterns in the flow of given and new information, and document design. Our findings are designed to help IRBs and researchers prepare consent forms that are more readable and, therefore, more in keeping with legal and ethical guidelines for human subjects research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Retrieval of Internet information for task-specific use in environmental risk management Content management strategy and heuristic evaluation of a model electronic portfolio: a rhetorical approach A constructivist perspective on knowledge management Issues in globalizing a U.S. government Website Identifying learning difficulties based on email responses of technologically-impoverished users
×
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:481959085
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