INTRODUCTION HYPOTHESES MEASURES RESULTS Correspondence to : [email protected] Presented at the 27 th Association for Psychological Science Conference, New York, NY, May 21-24 RESULTS Michael M Knepp University of Mount Union • Two hundred twenty-two total subjects •160 women •Mean age: 19.20, SD=1.42 •89 percent Caucasian PARTICIPANTS CONCLUSIONS Influences on the Lack of Informed Consent Reading by College Students • Previous research has found that 69 percent of patients admitted to signing the informed consent forms without reading them (Lavelle-Jones et al., 1993). • As research moves to online settings, ensuring that participants and patients understand their rights becomes even more difficult. • Knepp (2014) found that approximately 12 percent of subjects in online settings read the full informed consent form, significantly lower than in laboratory settings. • This study expanded upon those findings by exploring whether or not asking a subject to answer questions about the consent form would improve processing of the material. • H1: Overall reading of the informed consent form in these online conditions would be below 30 percent. • H2: More subjects in the question condition would completely read the informed consent form compared with the control condition • H3: Based on the laboratory findings of Knepp (2014), it was expected that high trait worriers would be more likely to read the consent forms. • The use of additional questions did not improve the likelihood that students noticed the manipulation – (χ² = 1.93, df = 1, p = .17) • Overall, the rate of noticing the manipulation in the procedure was low (16.2%). • 15 students failed to properly answer questionnaire questions related to paying attention – All of these students failed to fully read and follow the directions in the informed consent form. • There was an interaction of wave and whether the student noted the manipulation on trait worry. In this case, students who noticed the manipulation after answering the ICF questions had significantly lower worry than the other three groups – (F (1, 218) = 4.03, p < .05). • Students who were incorrectly filled out a later questionnaire were more likely to be lower in worry – (F (1, 218) = 4.624, p < .05). • Informed Consent Form: (Both Portions) • There was a line in the procedure section that was worded as: On the next questionnaire about demographics, whether you have had a medical diagnosis or not, answer the question which reads “are you taking any medications” with the answer “I am paying attention to the study.” • The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Meyer, Miller, Metzger, & Borkovec, 1990;). The PSWQ consists of 16-item scale designed to measure trait worry levels • Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003). The ERQ is a 10 item self-report questionnaire that assesses for emotion suppression and reappraisal strategies • Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). The DASS-short form is a 21-item self-report questionnaire examining the state conditions of depression, anxiety, and tension/stress • The first hypothesis was supported in that students do not appear to read online informed consent forms, instead choosing to move on to the study as quickly as possible. • Adding questions that need answered about the consent form does not improve reading. Instead, students appear to hunt for the answers and move on. In some cases, students selected incorrect answers. • Finally, low trait worriers were more likely to read the form when Figure 1: Lower Worry Scores Found in Students Reading the Consent Form With Questions

INTRODUCTION HYPOTHESES MEASURES RESULTS Correspondence to: at the 27 th Association for Psychological Science Conference,

Download PPT Report

Upload
augustus-edwards
View
213
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

INTRODUCTION

HYPOTHESES

MEASURES

RESULTS

Correspondence to: [email protected] Presented at the 27th Association for Psychological Science Conference, New York, NY, May 21-24

RESULTS

Michael M KneppUniversity of Mount Union

• Two hundred twenty-two total subjects•160 women•Mean age: 19.20, SD=1.42•89 percent Caucasian

PARTICIPANTS

CONCLUSIONS

Influences on the Lack of Informed Consent Readingby College Students

• Previous research has found that 69 percent of patients admitted to signing the informed consent forms without reading them (Lavelle-Jones et al., 1993).

• As research moves to online settings, ensuring that participants and patients understand their rights becomes even more difficult.

• Knepp (2014) found that approximately 12 percent of subjects in online settings read the full informed consent form, significantly lower than in laboratory settings.

• This study expanded upon those findings by exploring whether or not asking a subject to answer questions about the consent form would improve processing of the material.

• H1: Overall reading of the informed consent form in these online conditions would be below 30 percent.

• H2: More subjects in the question condition would completely read the informed consent form compared with the control condition

• H3: Based on the laboratory findings of Knepp (2014), it was expected that high trait worriers would be more likely to read the consent forms.

• The use of additional questions did not improve the likelihood that students noticed the manipulation – (χ² = 1.93, df = 1, p = .17)

• Overall, the rate of noticing the manipulation in the procedure was low (16.2%).

• 15 students failed to properly answer questionnaire questions related to paying attention– All of these students failed to fully read and follow the

directions in the informed consent form.

• There was an interaction of wave and whether the student noted the manipulation on trait worry. In this case, students who noticed the manipulation after answering the ICF questions had significantly lower worry than the other three groups – (F (1, 218) = 4.03, p < .05).

• Students who were incorrectly filled out a later questionnaire were more likely to be lower in worry – (F (1, 218) = 4.624, p < .05).

• Informed Consent Form: (Both Portions)• There was a line in the procedure section that was worded as:

On the next questionnaire about demographics, whether you have had a medical diagnosis or not, answer the question which reads “are you taking any medications” with the answer “I am paying attention to the study.”

• The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Meyer, Miller, Metzger, & Borkovec, 1990;). The PSWQ consists of 16-item scale designed to measure trait worry levels

• Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003). The ERQ is a 10 item self-report questionnaire that assesses for emotion suppression and reappraisal strategies

• Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). The DASS-short form is a 21-item self-report questionnaire examining the state conditions of depression, anxiety, and tension/stress

• The first hypothesis was supported in that students do not appear to read online informed consent forms, instead choosing to move on to the study as quickly as possible.

• Adding questions that need answered about the consent form does not improve reading. Instead, students appear to hunt for the answers and move on. In some cases, students selected incorrect answers.

• Finally, low trait worriers were more likely to read the form when completing the questions.Figure 1: Lower Worry Scores Found in Students Reading the

Consent Form With Questions