撰写可读的同意表格:内部审查委员会给出的建议有多有用?

K. Riley, J. Spartz, J. Mackiewicz
{"title":"撰写可读的同意表格:内部审查委员会给出的建议有多有用?","authors":"K. Riley, J. Spartz, J. Mackiewicz","doi":"10.1109/IPCC.2004.1375267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Institutional review boards (IRBs) often provide researchers with advice about how to write readable consent forms (CFs) for human subjects research. This work reports on the type, amount, and accuracy of advice given on 30 IRB Web sites. Our findings suggest that this advice, while well-intended, is often weak or uneven in one or more of these areas. This study provides insight into the assumptions that one type of bureaucratic body holds about how to construct readable prose and into how it communicates those assumptions to subject-matter experts. It also demonstrates one mechanism through which (sometimes faulty) assumptions about writing are perpetuated and legitimatized.","PeriodicalId":202491,"journal":{"name":"International Professional Communication Conference, 2004. IPCC 2004. Proceedings.","volume":"76 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Writing readable consent forms: how useful is the advice given by IRBs?\",\"authors\":\"K. Riley, J. Spartz, J. Mackiewicz\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/IPCC.2004.1375267\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Institutional review boards (IRBs) often provide researchers with advice about how to write readable consent forms (CFs) for human subjects research. This work reports on the type, amount, and accuracy of advice given on 30 IRB Web sites. Our findings suggest that this advice, while well-intended, is often weak or uneven in one or more of these areas. This study provides insight into the assumptions that one type of bureaucratic body holds about how to construct readable prose and into how it communicates those assumptions to subject-matter experts. It also demonstrates one mechanism through which (sometimes faulty) assumptions about writing are perpetuated and legitimatized.\",\"PeriodicalId\":202491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Professional Communication Conference, 2004. IPCC 2004. Proceedings.\",\"volume\":\"76 3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Professional Communication Conference, 2004. IPCC 2004. Proceedings.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2004.1375267\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Professional Communication Conference, 2004. IPCC 2004. Proceedings.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2004.1375267","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

机构审查委员会(irb)经常向研究人员提供关于如何为人类受试者研究编写可读同意书(CFs)的建议。这项工作报告了30个IRB网站上给出的建议的类型、数量和准确性。我们的研究结果表明,这一建议虽然用意良好,但在其中一个或多个方面往往是薄弱或不平衡的。这项研究提供了对一种官僚机构持有的关于如何构建可读散文的假设的见解,以及它如何将这些假设传达给主题专家。它还展示了一种机制,通过这种机制,关于写作的假设(有时是错误的)得以延续和合法化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Writing readable consent forms: how useful is the advice given by IRBs?
Institutional review boards (IRBs) often provide researchers with advice about how to write readable consent forms (CFs) for human subjects research. This work reports on the type, amount, and accuracy of advice given on 30 IRB Web sites. Our findings suggest that this advice, while well-intended, is often weak or uneven in one or more of these areas. This study provides insight into the assumptions that one type of bureaucratic body holds about how to construct readable prose and into how it communicates those assumptions to subject-matter experts. It also demonstrates one mechanism through which (sometimes faulty) assumptions about writing are perpetuated and legitimatized.
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
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信