Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016;23(5):288-308.
doi: 10.1080/08989621.2016.1171149.

Making Professional Decisions in Research: Measurement and Key Predictors

Alison L Antes  1 , John T Chibnall  2   3 , Kari A Baldwin  1 , Raymond C Tait  2 , Jillon S Vander Wal  3 , James M DuBois  1
Affiliations

Making Professional Decisions in Research: Measurement and Key Predictors

Alison L Antes et al. Account Res. 2016.

Abstract

The professional decision-making in research (PDR) measure was administered to 400 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded and industry-funded investigators, along with measures of cynicism, moral disengagement, compliance disengagement, impulsivity, work stressors, knowledge of responsible conduct of research (RCR), and socially desirable response tendencies. Negative associations were found for the PDR and measures of cynicism, moral disengagement, and compliance disengagement, while positive associations were found for the PDR and RCR knowledge and positive urgency, an impulsivity subscale. PDR scores were not related to socially desirable responding, or to measures of work stressors and the remaining impulsivity subscales. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, lower moral disengagement scores, higher RCR knowledge, and identifying the United States as one's nation of origin emerged as key predictors of stronger performance on the PDR. The implications of these findings for understanding the measurement of decision-making in research and future directions for research and RCR education are discussed.

Keywords: Assessment; RCR education and instruction; decision-making; measurement; professionalism; research ethics; research integrity; responsible conduct of research.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. AAMC-AAU. AAMC. Washington, DC: AAMC-AAU; 2008. Protecting patients, preserving integrity, advancing health: Accelerating the implementation of COI policies in human subjects research; pp. 1–87.
    1. Anderson MS, Horn AS, Risbey KR, Ronning EA, De Vries R, Martinson BC. What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine. 2007;82:853–60. - PubMed
    1. Antes AL, Murphy ST, Waples EP, Mumford MD, Brown RP, Connelly S, Devenport LD. A meta-analysis of ethics instruction effectiveness in the sciences. Ethics and Behavior. 2009;19:379–402. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Antes AL, DuBois JM. Aligning objectives and assessment in responsible conduct of research instruction. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education. 2014;15:108–116. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Antes AL, Wang X, Mumford MD, Brown RP, Connelly S, Devenport LD. Evaluating the effects that existing instruction on responsible conduct of research has on ethical decision making. Academic Medicine. 2010;85:519–526. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources