|
On the Other Side of Recruitment: Participant Perceptions of Risk During Disclosure for Biomedical Research
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Jonathan Rubright, University of Delaware, rubright@udel.edu
|
| Pamela Sankar, University of Pennsylvania, sankarp@mail.med.upenn.edu
|
| Jason Karlawish, University of Pennsylvania, jason.karlawish@uphs.upenn.edu
|
| Abstract:
The integrity of the informed consent process is crucial to evaluation quality. While much effort has gone into what information should be disclosed to potential participants, comparatively less attention has been given to how individuals perceive this information. Participants’ perceptions of a project may impact whether they are willing to participate at all. This paper describes findings from research on the informed consent process, specifically on individual’s perceptions of risks and benefits. The research was conducted in the context of a disclosure for an Alzheimer’s disease biomarker study and focuses on the questions:
How do individuals perceive information on risks and benefits presented in an informed consent form?
Do individuals hold any misconceptions about the risks and benefits of research, and if so, what are they?
|
|
Inclusion of People with Disabilities in Evaluation Practice
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Miriam Jacobson, Claremont Graduate University, miriam.jacobson@cgu.edu
|
| Abstract:
This study investigates the nature of inclusion of people with disabilities in the evaluations of their programs. Using published articles describing recent examples of these evaluations, a content analysis systematically examined which stakeholders were included, how their input was obtained, and areas of the evaluation where participation actually occurred. This will address the following questions: 1) What level of inclusion of program participants with disabilities has been implemented in practice? 2) What methodologies are used to elicit views of people with disabilities? 3) What is the potential role of contextual variables in moderating inclusion? Implications for evaluation practice and theories of inclusion in evaluation will be discussed.
|
|
Using Norm-based Appeals to Increase Response-Rate in Evaluation Research: A Field Experiment
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Anne Heberger, National Academy of Sciences, aheberger@nas.edu
|
| Shalini Misra, University of California, Irvine, shalinim@uci.edu
|
| Daniel Stokols, University of California, Irvine, dstokols@uci.edu
|
| Abstract:
Persuasive appeals emphasizing descriptive social norms (what most other people do in the same situation) are effective in promoting pro-environmental behavior (cf., Cialdini, 2003). This paper reports two field experiments that tested the effectiveness of norm-based persuasive messages in the context of evaluation research. Participants at an interdisciplinary conference were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The experimental group received a message highlighting a descriptive social norm: “Every year, over 75% of conference participants complete the post-conference survey. Join your fellow participants in improving the quality of future conferences by filling out this survey” before receiving an online survey evaluating the conference. The control group received a generic message without any norm-based appeals. Three months later, participants were randomly assigned to receive either a descriptive norm-based message or a generic message requesting them to complete another post-conference survey. The experimental findings and their implications for evaluation research are discussed.
|
| | |