当前位置: X-MOL 学术Br. J. Psychol. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Reconsidering reconsent: Threats to internal and external validity when participants reconsent after debriefing
British Journal of Psychology ( IF 4.981 ) Pub Date : 2022-03-10 , DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12561
Gordon Hodson 1
Affiliation  

We overwhelmingly utilize (partially) informed consent for, and debriefing of, human research participants. Also common is the practice of reconsent, particularly where changes in study protocols (or in participants themselves) occur midstream – participants consent again to remaining in the project or to having their data included. Worryingly under-discussed is post-debriefing reconsent, wherein participants can withdraw their data after learning more fully of the study's goals and methods. Yet, major ethics bodies in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom promote such practice, with vague and potentially problematic guidelines. Here, the author provides examples involving such reconsent practice, highlighting potentially serious problems that are scientific (e.g. threats to internal and external validity) and ethical (i.e. to the participant, their peers, the researcher and society) in nature. Particularly, problematic is the introduction, by design, of unknowable bias in our research findings. For example, highly prejudiced participants could withdraw data from a discrimination study after learning of the study's hypotheses and goals. The practice may arguably contradict an Open Science goal of increasing research transparency. This call for discussion about the direction of psychological science methods aims to engage a broader discussion in the research community.

中文翻译:

重新考虑重新同意:当参与者在汇报后重新同意时,对内部和外部有效性的威胁

我们压倒性地使用(部分)知情同意,并听取人类研究参与者的汇报。再次同意的做法也很常见,特别是在研究方案(或参与者本身)发生变化的情况下——参与者再次同意留在项目中或将他们的数据包括在内。令人担忧的是,在汇报后重新同意,参与者可以在更充分地了解研究的目标和方法后撤回他们的数据。然而,加拿大、美国和英国的主要伦理机构提倡这种做法,其指导方针含糊不清且可能存在问题。在这里,作者提供了涉及这种重新同意实践的例子,突出了科学(例如对内部和外部有效性的威胁)和道德(即 参与者、他们的同龄人、研究人员和社会)。特别是,有问题的是,我们的研究结果有意引入了不可知的偏见。例如,高度偏见的参与者可以在了解研究的假设和目标后从歧视研究中提取数据。这种做法可能与提高研究透明度的开放科学目标相矛盾。呼吁讨论心理科学方法的方向旨在在研究界进行更广泛的讨论。假设和目标。这种做法可能与提高研究透明度的开放科学目标相矛盾。呼吁讨论心理科学方法的方向旨在在研究界进行更广泛的讨论。假设和目标。这种做法可能与提高研究透明度的开放科学目标相矛盾。呼吁讨论心理科学方法的方向旨在在研究界进行更广泛的讨论。
更新日期:2022-03-10
down
wechat
bug