Disability and health journal · 2024
Social validity of Research Ethics for All: Social-behavioral research ethics education for community research partners with developmental disabilities.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schwartz Ariel E, McDonald Katherine, Research Ethics for All Consortium
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Training in research ethics supports community research partners with developmental disabilities to take on additional research responsibilities. We worked with an academic-community partnership to develop an accessible research ethics training tailored to the roles of community research partners with developmental disabilities that leads to certification: Research Ethics for All.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the social validity of the educational activities and certification process.
METHODS: We shared the training via a webinar and gathered feedback from attendees using polls (138 attendees; 92 respondents). In addition, four research teams composed of academic researchers and community research partners with developmental disabilities completed Research Ethics for All. Teams provided feedback on a series of surveys as they prepared to use the training, completed each of the 5 learning units, and after completing the training. We calculated descriptive statistics and used a pragmatic content analysis approach to analyze open-ended data.
RESULTS: Teams were satisfied with the training and felt it supported learning. They endorsed the videos and learning activities but thought videos should be shorter. 68.5% of webinar attendees felt that Research Ethics for All covers essential information in social-behavioral research ethics. Several IRBs have approved the use of Research Ethics for All.
CONCLUSIONS: Research Ethics for All is an acceptable research ethics training that may support community research partners with developmental disabilities to take on important research responsibilities in social-behavioral research.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the social validity of the educational activities and certification process.
METHODS: We shared the training via a webinar and gathered feedback from attendees using polls (138 attendees; 92 respondents). In addition, four research teams composed of academic researchers and community research partners with developmental disabilities completed Research Ethics for All. Teams provided feedback on a series of surveys as they prepared to use the training, completed each of the 5 learning units, and after completing the training. We calculated descriptive statistics and used a pragmatic content analysis approach to analyze open-ended data.
RESULTS: Teams were satisfied with the training and felt it supported learning. They endorsed the videos and learning activities but thought videos should be shorter. 68.5% of webinar attendees felt that Research Ethics for All covers essential information in social-behavioral research ethics. Several IRBs have approved the use of Research Ethics for All.
CONCLUSIONS: Research Ethics for All is an acceptable research ethics training that may support community research partners with developmental disabilities to take on important research responsibilities in social-behavioral research.