1887

Aligning Objectives and Assessment in Responsible Conduct of Research Instruction

    Authors: Alison L. Antes1,*, James M. DuBois1
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    • Published 15 December 2014
    • aThe CITI training program alone states that over 6.4 million courses have been completed, with an average of 4.5 hours invested in each of their basic courses. See https://www.citiprogram.org/ (accessed on 5 September 2014). The U.S. Office of Research Integrity’s RCR Resource Development program awarded $1.5 million to various institutions to develop programs, and has spent over $1 million developing their own training programs, such as The Lab. See http://ori.hhs.gov/ (accessed on 5 September 2014).
    • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8005, St. Louis, MO 63110. Phone: 314-362-6006. Fax: 314-454-5113. E-mail: [email protected].
    • ©2014 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. December 2014 vol. 15 no. 2 108-116. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.852
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • HTML
    90.48 Kb
  • PDF
    246.76 Kb
  • XML

    Abstract:

    Efforts to advance research integrity in light of concerns about misbehavior in research rely heavily on education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). However, there is limited evidence for the effectiveness of RCR instruction as a remedy. Assessment is essential in RCR education if the research community wishes to expend the effort of instructors, students, and trainees wisely. This article presents key considerations that instructors and course directors must consider in aligning learning objectives with instructional methods and assessment measures, and it provides illustrative examples. Above all, in order for RCR educators to assess outcomes more effectively, they must align assessment to their learning objectives and attend to the validity of the measures used.

Key Concept Ranking

Lead
0.58035713
Mismatch
0.55
Canning
0.5347343
Beta
0.51468176
Transcription
0.51468176
Slides
0.51468176
Stems
0.4739098
0.58035713

References & Citations

1. AAMC-AAU 2008 Protecting patients, preserving integrity, advancing health: accelerating the implementation of COI policies in human subjects research AAMC-AAU Washington, DC
2. Anderson MS, Horn AS, Risbey KR, Ronning EA, De Vries R, Martinson BC 2007 What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a National Survey of NIH-funded scientists Acad Med 82 853 860 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c 17726390 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f764c
3. Anderson M, Ronning EA, De Vries R, Martinson B 2010 Extending the Mertonian norms: scientists’ subscription to norms of research J High Educ 81 366 393 10.1353/jhe.0.0095 http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0095
4. Antes AL, Wang X, Mumford MD, Brown RP, Connelly S, Devenport LD 2010 Evaluating the effects that existing instruction on responsible conduct of research has on ethical decision making Acad Med 85 519 526 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181cd1cc5 20182131 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181cd1cc5
5. Antes AL, et al 2009 A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences Ethics Behav 19 379 402 10.1080/10508420903035380 19838311 2762211 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508420903035380
6. Antes AL 2014 A systematic approach to instruction in research ethics Account Res 21 50 67 10.1080/08989621.2013.822269 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822269
7. Bates R 2004 A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence Eval Program Plann 27 341 347 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.04.011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.04.011
8. Bebeau MJ, Rest JR, Yamoor CM 1985 Measuring dental students’ ethical sensitivity J Dent Educ 49 225 235 3857273
9. Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, Hill WH, Krathwohl DR 1956 Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook I: cognitive domain David McKay Company New York, NY
10. Borenstein J, Drake MJ, Kirkman R, Swann JL 2008 The test of ethical sensitivity in science and engineering (TESSE): a discipline-specific assessment tool for awareness of ethical issues Annual ASEE Conference, American Society for Engineering Education Pittsburgh, PA
11. Clarkeburn H 2002 A test for ethical sensitivity in science J Moral Educ 31 439 453 10.1080/0305724022000029662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305724022000029662
12. Cohen CM, Cohen SL 2012 Lab dynamics: management and leadership skills for scientists 2nd ed Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Cold Spring Harbor, NY
13. DeVellis RF 2003 Scale development: theory and applications Sage Thousand Oaks, CA
14. DuBois JM 2013 Validating outcome measures for remediation of research wrongdoing Office of Research Integrity Newsletter 21 4 2
15. Dubois JM, Dueker JM 2009 Teaching and assessing the responsible conduct of research: a Delphi Consensus Panel Report J Res Adm 40 49 70 22500145 3322664
16. Fink LD 2013 Creating significant learning experiences: an integrated approach to designing college courses Jossey-Bass San Francisco, CA
17. Gould MS, Greenberg T, Velting DM, Shaffer D 2003 Youth suicide risk and preventive interventions: a review of the past 10 years J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 42 386 405 10.1097/01.CHI.0000046821.95464.CF 12649626 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.CHI.0000046821.95464.CF
18. Haladyna T, Downing S 1986 Validity of a taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules Appl Meas Educ 2 51 78 10.1207/s15324818ame0201_4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame0201_4
19. Hicks J 2013 Opinion: ethics training in science Scientist [Online.] http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/35543/title/Opinion--Ethics-Training-in-Science/
20. Hren D, Marusic M, Marusic A 2011 Regression of moral reasoning during medical education: combined design study to evaluate the effect of clinical study years PLoS ONE 6 e17406 10.1371/journal.pone.0017406 21479204 3068134 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017406
21. Kalichman MW, Plemmons DK 2007 Reported goals for responsible conduct of research courses Acad Med 82 846 852 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f78bf 17726389 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f78bf
22. Kraiger K, Ford J, Salas E 1993 Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation J Appl Psychology 78 311 328 10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311
23. Krathwohl DR 2002 A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview Theor Pract 41 212 218 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
24. Martinson B, Crain AL, Anderson M, DeVries R 2009 Institutions’ expectations for researchers’ self-funding, federal grant holding, and private industry involvement: manifold drivers of self-interest and researcher behavior Acad Med 84 1491 1499 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181bb2ca6 19858802 3071700 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181bb2ca6
25. Martinson BC, Thrush CR, Crain AL 2013 Development and validation of the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC) Sci Eng Ethics 19 813 834 10.1007/s11948-012-9410-7 3594655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9410-7
26. McCormack WT, Garvan CW 2014 Team-based learning instruction for responsible conduct of research positively impacts ethical decision-making Account Res 21 34 49 10.1080/08989621.2013.822267 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822267
27. Messick S 1995 Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning Am Psychol 50 741 749 10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741
28. Mumford MD, et al A sensemaking approach to ethics training for scientists: preliminary evidence of training effectiveness Ethics Behav 18 315 339 19578559 2705124
29. Mumford MD, et al 2009 Exposure to unethical career events: effects on decision-making, climate, and socialization Ethics Behav 19 351 378 10.1080/10508420903035356 19936323 2779529 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508420903035356
30. Mumford MD, et al 2006 Validation of ethical decision-making measures: evidence for a new set of measures Ethics Behav 16 319 345 10.1207/s15327019eb1604_4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1604_4
31. Myyry L, Helkama K 2002 The role of value priorities and professional ethics training in moral sensitivity J Moral Educ 31 35 50 10.1080/03057240120111427 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057240120111427
32. Nasca T, Philibert I, Brigham T, Flynn T 2012 The next GME accreditation system: rationale and benefits N Engl J Med 366 1051 1056 10.1056/NEJMsr1200117 22356262 http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1200117
33. Resnik D, Dinse GE 2012 Do U.S. research institutions meet or exceed federal mandates for instruction in responsible conduct of research? A national survey Acad Med 87 1237 1242 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318260fe5c 22836835 3430795 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318260fe5c
34. Resnik DB 2014 Editorial: does RCR education make students more ethical, and is this the right question to ask? Account Res 21 211 217 10.1080/08989621.2013.848800 24422701 3965192 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.848800
35. Self DJ, Olivarez M, Baldwin DCJ 1998 The amount of small-group case-study discussion needed to improve moral reasoning skills of medical students Acad Med 73 521 523 10.1097/00001888-199805000-00019 9609864 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199805000-00019
36. Taylor HA, Kass NE, Ali J, Sisson S, Bertram A, Bhan A 2012 Development of a research ethics knowledge and analytical skills assessment tool J Med Ethics 38 236 242 10.1136/medethics-2011-100025 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100025
37. West SL, O’Neal KK 2004 Project D.A.R.E. outcome effectiveness revisited Am J Public Health 94 1027 1029 10.2105/AJPH.94.6.1027 15249310 1448384 http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.6.1027

Supplemental Material

No supplementary material available for this content.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.852
2014-12-15
2019-08-20

Abstract:

Efforts to advance research integrity in light of concerns about misbehavior in research rely heavily on education in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). However, there is limited evidence for the effectiveness of RCR instruction as a remedy. Assessment is essential in RCR education if the research community wishes to expend the effort of instructors, students, and trainees wisely. This article presents key considerations that instructors and course directors must consider in aligning learning objectives with instructional methods and assessment measures, and it provides illustrative examples. Above all, in order for RCR educators to assess outcomes more effectively, they must align assessment to their learning objectives and attend to the validity of the measures used.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/15/2/jmbe-15-108.xml.a.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.852&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Author and Article Information

  • Published 15 December 2014
  • aThe CITI training program alone states that over 6.4 million courses have been completed, with an average of 4.5 hours invested in each of their basic courses. See https://www.citiprogram.org/ (accessed on 5 September 2014). The U.S. Office of Research Integrity’s RCR Resource Development program awarded $1.5 million to various institutions to develop programs, and has spent over $1 million developing their own training programs, such as The Lab. See http://ori.hhs.gov/ (accessed on 5 September 2014).
  • *Corresponding author. Mailing address: Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8005, St. Louis, MO 63110. Phone: 314-362-6006. Fax: 314-454-5113. E-mail: [email protected].
  • ©2014 Author(s). Published by the American Society for Microbiology.

Back to top
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error