Consent comprehension in the 21st century: What is missing?

Drug Information Journal

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 375-384

  Hochhauser, Mark ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Comprehension; Informed consent; Psychometrics; Readability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPREHENSION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; INFORMED CONSENT; LAW; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEMORY CONSOLIDATION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; READING; RELIABILITY; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; SCORING SYSTEM; SIMULATION; STANDARDIZATION; VALIDITY; WORKING MEMORY;

EID: 51049121102     PISSN: 00928615     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009286150804200410     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Sharp SM. Consent documents for oncology trials: Does anybody read these things? Am J Clin Oncol. 2004;27(6):570-575.
2. Furr RM, Bacharach RV. Psychometrics: An Introduction. Los Angeles: Sage Publications; 2007.
3. AERA. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 2004.
4. Hochhauser M. Informed consent: reading and understanding are not the same. Appl Clin Trials. 2004;13(4):42-44, 46, 48.
5. Hochhauser M. The multiple comprehensions of informed consent. DIA Forum. 2005;41(4): 22-23.
6. Hochhauser M. Emotion and logic in the informed consent process. Res Pract. 2004;5(4): 138-141.
7. Jacobs LC, Chase CI. Developing and Using Tests Effectively: A Guide for Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1992.
8. Thorndike RM. Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2004.
9. Miller CI, O'Donnell DC, Searight HR, Barbarash RA. The Deaconess Informed Consent Comprehension Test: an assessment tool for clinical research subjects. Pharmacotherapy. 1996;19(5): 872-878.
10. Joffe S, Cook EF, Cleary PD, et al. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. J Nat Cancer Inst. 2001;93(2):139-147.
11. Joffe S. Personal communication. January 29, 2007.
12. Flory JA, Emanuel E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research. A systematic review. JAMA. 2004;292:1593-1601.
13. Searight HR, Miller CK. Remembering and interpreting informed consent: a qualitative study of drug trial participants. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1996;9(1):14-22.
14. Guarino P, Lamping DL, Elbourne D, Carpenter J, Peduzzi P. A brief measure of perceived understanding of informed consent in a clinical trial was validated. J. Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59: 608-614.
15. Camerer CF, Lovallo D. Overconfidence and excess entry. An experimental approach. In Kahneman D, Tversky A, eds. Choices, Values, and Frames. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
16. Yates JF, Veinott ES, Patacano AL. Hard decisions, bad decisions: on decision quality and decision aiding. In Schneider SL, Shanteau J, eds. Emerging Perspectives on Judgment and Decision Research. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
17. Cohn E, Larson E. Improving participating comprehension in the informed consent process. J Nurs Scholarship. 2007;39(3):273-280.
18. Halford GS. Development of processing capacity entails more complex relations: implications for cognitive development. In Logie RH, Gilhooly KJ, eds. Working Memory and Thinking. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press; 1998.
19. Davison A, Green GM, eds. Linguistic Complexity and Text Comprehension: Readability Issues Reconsidered. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.
20. Zakulak BL, Samuels SJ, eds. Readability: Its Past, Present, and Future. Newark, DE: International Reading Association; 1988.
21. Klare GR. Readable computer documentation. ACM J Comput Documentation. 2000;24(3):148-168.
22. Redish JC, Selzer J. The place of readability formulas in technical communications. Tech Commun. 1985;(Fourth Quarter):46-52.
23. Redish J. Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses. ACM J Comput Documentation. 2000;24(3):132-137.
24. Schriver KA. Readability formulas in the new millennium: what's the use? ACM J Comput Documentation. 2000;24(3):138-140.
25. Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancan FL. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(8):721-726.
26. Flesch RF. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:221-233.
27. Flesch RF. The Art of Readable Writing. New York: Macmillan; 1949.
28. Breland HM. Word frequency and word difficulty: a comparison of counts in four corpora. Psych Sci. 1996;7(2):96-99.
29. Hochhauser M. Improving patients' understanding of research: a plain English summary and informed consent form. Clin Researcher. 2003; 3(12):16-30.