Development and validation of a tool to assess researchers’ knowledge of human subjects’ rights and their attitudes toward research ethics education in Saudi Arabia

BMC Medical Ethics 24 (1):1-16 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Background Researchers must adhere to ethical and scientific standards in their research involving human subjects; therefore, their knowledge of human subjects’ rights is essential. A tool to measure the extent of this knowledge is necessary to ensure that studies with participants are conducted ethically and to enhance research integrity. Currently, no validated instrument is available for such an assessment. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to develop a reliable and valid instrument to assess researchers’ knowledge of human subjects’ rights in clinical settings, as well as a reliable and valid measure of their attitudes toward clinical research ethics education in Saudi Arabia. Methods The current study involves the development of a questionnaire about the rights of human subjects in research and the researchers’ attitudes toward research ethics education. The content was developed based on an extensive review of research ethics guidelines. A panel of experts tested the questionnaire for face validity (n = 5) and content validity (n = 8). The reliability of the questionnaire was established by a split-half reliability coefficient and item analysis among a sample (n = 301) of clinical researchers. Results Face validity demonstrated that the questionnaire was quick to complete and easy to answer. The global content validity indices (S-CVIs) were greater than 0.78 for all questionnaire sections; the split-half reliability coefficient was 0.755 for knowledge items; Cronbach’s alpha was 0.77 for researchers’ attitudes, showing good internal consistency. The difficulty index ranged from 12.0% to 98.7% for all knowledge items. Most questions were at an acceptable level of reliability and discrimination criteria. The final version of the questionnaire contained 89 items, distributed as 15 questions on demographic and professional characteristics, 64 questions items on knowledge, and 10 items on attitudes. Conclusions The questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool to assess biomedical researchers’ knowledge of human subjects’ rights and their attitudes toward research ethics education. This instrument could help address the gap in researchers’ knowledge of the rights and facilitate the development of educational intervention programs to set appropriate learning objectives.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,497

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A UPR Perspective on Capital Punishment and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.Amna Nazir - 2022 - Muslim World Journal of Human Rights 19 (1):77-94.
Silent partners: human subjects and research ethics.Rebecca Dresser - 2017 - New York, NY, United States of America: Oxford University Press.
Eurocentrism, Human Rights, and Humanism.Fernando Suárez Müller - 2012 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (2):279-293.
Eurocentrism, Human Rights, and Humanism.Fernando Suarez Müller - 2012 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (2):279-293.
A UPR Perspective on Capital Punishment and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.Amna Nazir - 2023 - Muslim World Journal of Human Rights 20 (1):1-18.
Compensation and Limits on Harm in Animal Research.Jake Earl - 2022 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 32 (3):313-327.
Exploring the socio-cultural aspects of e-learning delivery in Saudi Arabia.Rocci Luppicini & Eman Walabe - 2021 - Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 19 (4):560-579.
Foreword to Renquan Magazine.[author unknown] - 1999 - Contemporary Chinese Thought 31 (1):69-73.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-11-07

Downloads
2 (#1,809,554)

6 months
1 (#1,478,830)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references