Suppr超能文献

传播学与障碍研究中的负责任行为:教师与学生的看法。

Responsible conduct of research in communication sciences and disorders: faculty and student perceptions.

机构信息

University of Washington, Seattle, USA.

出版信息

J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011 Feb;54(1):S363-93. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0262). Epub 2010 Nov 16.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Two Web-based surveys (Surveys I and II) were used to assess perceptions of faculty and students in Communication Sciences and Disorders (CSD) regarding the responsible conduct of research (RCR).

METHOD

Survey questions addressed 9 RCR domains thought important to the responsible conduct of research: (a) human subjects protections; (b) research involving animals; (c) publication practices and responsible authorship; (d) mentor/trainee responsibilities; (e) collaborative science; (f) peer review; (g) data acquisition, management, sharing, and ownership; (h) conflicts of interest; and (i) research misconduct. Respondents rated each of 37 topics for importance and for sufficiency of instructional coverage.

RESULTS

Respondents to Survey I were 137 faculty members from 68 (26%) of the 261 graduate programs in CSD. By comparison, 237 students from 39 (15%) programs responded to Survey II. Data about the importance and sufficiency of coverage of each of the 37 items were transformed into z scores to reveal relative ratings among the 37 topics. Data presentations were grouped for topics in each of the 9 RCR domains. Ratings indicated the relatively high importance assigned among the 37 topics by CSD faculty and students. Sufficiency of coverage of those same topics received lower ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of these surveys support the notion that students in CSD perceive that they are receiving information about RCR. The data pertaining to sufficiency of coverage provide a basis for improving instruction in this important aspect of research education.

摘要

目的

采用两项基于网络的调查(调查 I 和 II)评估沟通科学与障碍(CSD)领域的教师和学生对研究道德规范(RCR)的看法。

方法

调查问题涉及到被认为对研究道德规范至关重要的 9 个 RCR 领域:(a)保护人类受试者;(b)涉及动物的研究;(c)出版实践和负责任的作者身份;(d)导师/学员责任;(e)合作科学;(f)同行评审;(g)数据获取、管理、共享和所有权;(h)利益冲突;以及(i)研究不端行为。受访者对 37 个主题的重要性和教学涵盖的充分性进行了评分。

结果

调查 I 的受访者是来自 261 个 CSD 研究生课程中的 68 个(26%)的 137 名教师。相比之下,有 237 名学生来自 39 个(15%)课程,对调查 II 做出了回应。关于 37 个项目中的每一个的重要性和涵盖范围的数据被转换为 z 分数,以揭示 37 个主题之间的相对评分。数据展示按每个 RCR 领域的主题分组。评分表明,CSD 教师和学生对 37 个主题中的相对重要性给予了高度评价。但对这些相同主题的涵盖范围的评价较低。

结论

这些调查的结果支持了这样一种观点,即 CSD 的学生认为他们正在接受关于 RCR 的信息。关于涵盖范围的充分性的数据为改进研究教育中这一重要方面的教学提供了依据。

相似文献

1
Responsible conduct of research in communication sciences and disorders: faculty and student perceptions.
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011 Feb;54(1):S363-93. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0262). Epub 2010 Nov 16.
2
Research ethics III: Publication practices and authorship, conflicts of interest, and research misconduct.
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011 Feb;54(1):S346-62. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0263). Epub 2010 Nov 16.
3
Research integrity in communication sciences and disorders: preface.
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011 Feb;54(1):S300-2. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/09-0266).
5
Research ethics I: Responsible conduct of research (RCR)--historical and contemporary issues pertaining to human and animal experimentation.
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011 Feb;54(1):S303-29. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0265). Epub 2010 Nov 16.
6
New graduate students' baseline knowledge of the responsible conduct of research.
Acad Med. 2007 Sep;82(9):838-45. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31812f7956.
7
Research ethics.
Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2006 Aug;24(3):657-69. doi: 10.1016/j.emc.2006.05.013.
9
Ethical considerations in bioengineering research.
Biomed Sci Instrum. 2003;39:573-8.
10
Do authorship policies impact students' judgments of perceived wrongdoing?
Ethics Behav. 1998;8(1):59-79. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb0801_5.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验