Informed Consent for Online Research-Is Anybody Reading?: Assessing Comprehension and Individual Differences in Readings of Digital Consent Forms.

IF 1.1
Caitlin Geier, Robyn B Adams, Katharine M Mitchell, Bree E Holtz
{"title":"Informed Consent for Online Research-Is Anybody Reading?: Assessing Comprehension and Individual Differences in Readings of Digital Consent Forms.","authors":"Caitlin Geier,&nbsp;Robyn B Adams,&nbsp;Katharine M Mitchell,&nbsp;Bree E Holtz","doi":"10.1177/15562646211020160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Informed consent is an important part of the research process; however, some participants either do not read or skim the consent form. When participants do not read or comprehend informed consent, then they may not understand the potential benefits, risks, or details of the study before participating. This study used previous research to develop experimentally manipulated online consent forms utilizing various presentations of the consent form and interactive elements. Participants (<i>n</i> = 576) were randomly exposed to one of six form variations. Results found that the highly interactive condition was significantly better for comprehension than any of the other conditions. The highly interactive condition also performed better for readability, though not significantly. Further research should explore the effects of interactive elements to combat habituation and to engage participants with the parts of the consent form unique to the study.</p>","PeriodicalId":520668,"journal":{"name":"Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE","volume":" ","pages":"154-164"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/15562646211020160","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211020160","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/5/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Informed consent is an important part of the research process; however, some participants either do not read or skim the consent form. When participants do not read or comprehend informed consent, then they may not understand the potential benefits, risks, or details of the study before participating. This study used previous research to develop experimentally manipulated online consent forms utilizing various presentations of the consent form and interactive elements. Participants (n = 576) were randomly exposed to one of six form variations. Results found that the highly interactive condition was significantly better for comprehension than any of the other conditions. The highly interactive condition also performed better for readability, though not significantly. Further research should explore the effects of interactive elements to combat habituation and to engage participants with the parts of the consent form unique to the study.

在线研究的知情同意——有人在阅读吗?评估数字同意书阅读的理解和个体差异。
知情同意是研究过程的重要组成部分;然而,一些参与者没有阅读或略读同意书。如果参与者没有阅读或理解知情同意书,那么他们在参与研究之前可能不了解潜在的好处、风险或研究细节。本研究利用先前的研究开发实验操纵的在线同意表格,利用各种形式的同意表格和互动元素。参与者(n = 576)随机暴露于六种形式变化中的一种。结果发现,高度互动的条件明显比任何其他条件更好的理解。高度交互条件在可读性方面也表现得更好,尽管不是很明显。进一步的研究应该探索互动因素的影响,以对抗习惯,并使参与者参与到同意书中独特的部分。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书