• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

一些研究人员穿着黄色裤子,但阅读同意书的参与者更少:探索和改进人体研究中的同意书阅读情况。

Some researchers wear yellow pants, but even fewer participants read consent forms: Exploring and improving consent form reading in human subjects research.

作者信息

Douglas Benjamin D, McGorray Emma L, Ewell Patrick J

机构信息

Behavioral Lab, Stanford University Graduate School of Business, Stanford University.

Department of Psychology, Northwestern University.

出版信息

Psychol Methods. 2021 Feb;26(1):61-68. doi: 10.1037/met0000267. Epub 2020 Mar 19.

DOI:10.1037/met0000267
PMID:32191107
Abstract

Though consent forms include important information, those experienced with behavioral research often observe that participants do not carefully read consent forms. Three studies examined participants' reading of consent forms for in-person experiments. In each study, we inserted the phrase "some researchers wear yellow pants" into sections of the consent form and measured participants' reading of the form by testing their recall of the color yellow. In Study 1, we found that the majority of participants did not read consent forms thoroughly. This suggests that overall, participants sign consent forms that they have not read, confirming what has been observed anecdotally and documented in other research domains. Study 2 examined which sections of consent forms participants read and found that participants were more likely to read the first 2 sections of a consent form (procedure and risks) than later sections (benefits and anonymity and confidentiality). Given that rates of recall of the target phrase were under 70% even when the sentence was inserted into earlier sections of the form, we explored ways to improve participant reading in Study 3. Theorizing that the presence of a researcher may influence participants' retention of the form, we assigned participants to read the form with or without a researcher present. Results indicated that removing the researcher from the room while participants read the consent form decreased recall of the target phrase. Implications of these results and suggestions for future researchers are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

摘要

尽管同意书包含重要信息,但那些有行为研究经验的人常常观察到参与者不会仔细阅读同意书。三项研究考察了参与者对面对面实验同意书的阅读情况。在每项研究中,我们在同意书的部分内容中插入了“一些研究人员穿黄色裤子”这句话,并通过测试他们对黄色的记忆来衡量参与者对同意书的阅读情况。在研究1中,我们发现大多数参与者没有彻底阅读同意书。这表明总体而言,参与者签署了他们未读过的同意书,证实了在其他研究领域所观察到的轶事及记录。研究2考察了参与者阅读同意书的哪些部分,发现参与者更有可能阅读同意书的前两部分(程序和风险),而不是后面的部分(益处、匿名性和保密性)。鉴于即使将句子插入同意书的前面部分,目标短语的记忆率仍低于70%,我们在研究3中探索了提高参与者阅读的方法。基于研究人员的在场可能会影响参与者对同意书的记忆这一理论,我们让参与者在有或没有研究人员在场的情况下阅读同意书。结果表明,在参与者阅读同意书时让研究人员离开房间会降低对目标短语的记忆。讨论了这些结果的意义以及对未来研究人员的建议。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2021美国心理学会,保留所有权利)

相似文献

1
Some researchers wear yellow pants, but even fewer participants read consent forms: Exploring and improving consent form reading in human subjects research.一些研究人员穿着黄色裤子,但阅读同意书的参与者更少:探索和改进人体研究中的同意书阅读情况。
Psychol Methods. 2021 Feb;26(1):61-68. doi: 10.1037/met0000267. Epub 2020 Mar 19.
2
How informed is online informed consent?在线知情同意的信息有多充分?
Ethics Behav. 2005;15(1):37-48. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb1501_3.
3
Undergraduate Consent Form Reading in Relation to Conscientiousness, Procrastination, and the Point-of-Time Effect.与尽责性、拖延及时间点效应相关的本科同意书阅读情况
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014 Jul;9(3):11-7. doi: 10.1177/1556264614540593.
4
Informed Consent-Uninformed Participants: Shortcomings of Online Social Science Consent Forms and Recommendations for Improvement.知情同意——不知情的参与者:在线社会科学同意书的缺点及改进建议。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016 Jul;11(3):274-80. doi: 10.1177/1556264616654610. Epub 2016 Jun 21.
5
Are research participants truly informed? Readability of informed consent forms used in research.研究参与者是否真的得到了充分告知?研究中使用的知情同意书的可读性。
Ethics Behav. 1991;1(4):239-52. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb0104_2.
6
Seeking Ways to Inform the Uninformed: Improving the Informed Consent Process in Online Social Science Research.寻求告知不知情者的方法:改进在线社会科学研究中的知情同意程序。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018 Feb;13(1):50-60. doi: 10.1177/1556264617738846. Epub 2017 Nov 8.
7
Preparing accessible and understandable clinical research participant information leaflets and consent forms: a set of guidelines from an expert consensus conference.编写易于获取且通俗易懂的临床研究参与者信息手册和同意书:专家共识会议制定的一套指南
Res Involv Engagem. 2021 May 18;7(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00265-2.
8
Preserving participant anonymity during remote preenrollment consent form checking.在远程预入组同意书检查过程中保护参与者的匿名性。
Clin Trials. 2013;10(3):460-2. doi: 10.1177/1740774513480962. Epub 2013 Apr 4.
9
Personality, sex of participant, and face-to-face interaction affect reading of informed consent forms.参与者的个性、性别以及面对面互动会影响对知情同意书的阅读。
Psychol Rep. 2014 Feb;114(1):297-313. doi: 10.2466/17.07.PR0.114k13w1.
10
Do undergraduate student research participants read psychological research consent forms? Examining memory effects, condition effects, and individual differences.本科学生研究参与者会阅读心理学研究同意书吗?考察记忆效应、条件效应和个体差异。
Ethics Behav. 2011;21(4):332-350. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2011.585601. Epub 2011 Jul 14.

引用本文的文献

1
Improving Comprehension of Consent Forms in Online Research: An Empirical Test of Four Interventions.提高在线研究中同意书的理解程度:四种干预措施的实证检验
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2025 Feb-Apr;20(1-2):46-54. doi: 10.1177/15562646251321132. Epub 2025 Mar 14.
2
The Burden for High-Quality Online Data Collection Lies With Researchers, Not Recruitment Platforms.高质量在线数据收集的负担在于研究人员,而不是招聘平台。
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2024 Nov;19(6):891-899. doi: 10.1177/17456916241242734. Epub 2024 Apr 22.
3
Randomized study of two different consent procedures on recall: a study within a digital alcohol intervention trial.
随机研究两种不同的回忆性同意程序:一项数字酒精干预试验中的研究。
Trials. 2024 Jan 2;25(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s13063-023-07855-3.
4
Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA.在线人体研究中的数据质量:MTurk、ProLific、CloudResearch、Qualtrics 和 SONA 之间的比较。
PLoS One. 2023 Mar 14;18(3):e0279720. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279720. eCollection 2023.
5
Improving oncology first-in-human and Window of opportunity informed consent forms through participant feedback.通过参与者反馈,改进肿瘤学首次人体和机会之窗知情同意书。
BMC Med Ethics. 2023 Feb 19;24(1):12. doi: 10.1186/s12910-023-00890-4.
6
Does the management of personal integrity information lead to differing participation rates and response patterns in mental health surveys with young adults? A three-armed methodological experiment.个人诚信信息管理是否会导致年轻人心理健康调查中的参与率和反应模式不同?一项三臂方法学实验。
Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2021 Dec;30(4):e1891. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1891. Epub 2021 Aug 21.