Responsible conduct of research measure: Initial development and pilot study

Accountability in Research

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 87-104

  Wester, Kelly L ^a   Willse, John T ^a   Davis, Mark S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO   (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Ethics; Integrity; Research misconduct; Responsible conduct of research

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; EVALUATION; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PEER REVIEW; PILOT STUDY; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESEARCH ETHICS; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; ETHICS, RESEARCH; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PILOT PROJECTS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 51149113342     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989620801946891     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Alberts, B., and Shine, K. (1994). Scientists and the integrity of research, Science, 266: 1660-1661.
2. Aleamoni, L. M. (1976). The relation of sample size to the number of variables in using factor analysis techniques, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36: 879-883.
3. Allen, M. J., and Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction to Measurement Theory. Lon Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.
4. American Counseling Association (2005). ACA code of Ethics 2005. Available at http://www.counseling.org/Resources/CodeOfEthics/TP/Home/CT2.aspx, last accessed on 18 March, 2008.
5. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Available at http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html, last accessed 17 January, 2007.
6. Anderson, M. S. (1996). Misconduct and departmental context: Evidence from the Acadia Institute's graduate education project, Journal of Information Ethics, 5: 15-33.
7. Anderson, M. S., Seashore Louis, K., and Earle, J. (1994). Disciplinary and departmental effects on observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct, The Journal of Higher Education, 65: 331-350.
8. Broome, M. E., Pryor, E., Habermann, B., Pulley, L., and Kincaid, H. (2006). The scientific misconduct questionnaire-revised (SMQ-R): Validation and psychometric testing, Accountability in Research, 12: 263-280.
9. Converse, J. M., and Presser, S. (1986). Survey questions: Handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-063. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
10. Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). Professional standards. Available at http://www.ideapractices.org/ps/, last accessed 17 January, 2007.
11. Crowne, D. P., and Marlowe, D. (1964). The Approval Motive: Studies in Evaluative Dependence. New York: Wiley.
12. Davis, M. S., Riske, M. L., and Seaman, M., (2001). Research Misconducts: An Inquiry into Etiology a,nd Stigma-. Final Report Presented to the Office of Research Integrity. Amherst, OH: Justice Research and Advocacy, Inc.
13. Davis, M. S., Wester, K. L., and King, B. (2008). Narcissism, entitlement, and questionable practices of research in counseling. A pilot study, Journal of Counseling and Development.
14. de Vries, R., Anderson, M. S., and Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1: 43-50.
15. Del Boca, F. K., and Noll, J. A. (2000). Truth or consequences: The validity of self-report data in health services research on addictions, Addiction, 95: S347-S360.
16. Gardner, W. (2006, December). The social cost of scientific misconduct and questionable research practices. Presentation given at the ORI Research Conference, Tampa, FL.
17. Golub, A., Johnson B. D., Taylor, A., and Liberty, H. J. (2002). The validity of arrestees' self-reports: Variations across questions and persons, Justice Quarterly, 19: 477-502.
18. Guadagnoli, E., and Velicer, W. F. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns, Psychological Bulletin, 103: 265-275.
19. Institute of Medicine National Research Council. (2002). Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct. Washington, D.C.: The National Academics Press.
20. McDonald, R. P. (1999) Test Theory: A Unified Trea,tment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., Crain, A. L., and de Vries, R. (2006). Scientists' perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors, Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1: 51-66.
22. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., and Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor Analysis, Psychological Methods, 4: 84-99.
23. Office of Research Integrity. (2000). PHSpolicy on instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) - suspended. Available at http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/programs/finalpolicy.asp, last accessed 12 March, 2004.
24. Office of Research Integrity. (2003). Research on research integrity, Retrieved online February 20, 2004, at http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-NS-03-001.html.
25. Office of Research Integrity. (2006). Handling misconduct - case summaries. Available at: http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/cases/, last accessed 20 February, 2004.
26. Rankin, M., and Esteeves, M. (1997). Perceptions of scientific misconduct in nursing, Nursing Research, 46: 270-276.
27. Ray, J. (1984). The reliability of short social desirability scales, Journal of Social Psychology, 123: 133-134.
28. Recchia Jeffers, B. (2005). Research environments that promote integrity, Nursing Research, 54: 63-70.
29. Sapnas, K. G., and Zeller, R. A. (2002). Minimizing sample size when using exploratory factor analysis for measurement, Journal of Nursing Measurement, 10: 135-154.
30. Shafir, S., and Kennedy, D. (1998). Research misconduct: Media exaggerate results of a survey, The Scientist, 12: 0. Available at: http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1998/june/opin_980622.html, last accessed 15 July, 2007.
31. Steneck, N. H. (2003). The role of professional societies in promoting integrity in Research, American Journal of Health and Behavior, 27: S239-S247.
32. Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions, Science and Engineering Ethics, 12: 53-74.
33. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
34. Wiles, R., Charles, V., Crow, G., and Heath, S. (2006). Researching researchers: Lessons for research ethics, Qualitative Research, 6: 283-299.
35. Wilson, T. D., and Nisbett, R. E. (1978). The accuracy of verbal reports about the effects of stimuli on evaluations and behavior, Social Psychology, 41: 118-131.