Cuvinte cheie
doctoral students
doctoral education
biomedical research
Cum cităm
Rezumat
Introduction Ethical competencies of researchers contribute to ensuring scientific integrity, professional responsibility, and the protection of study participants. The aim of this study was to assess the perceived ethical competencies of doctoral students conducting research in the health field.
Materials and methods This paper presents a comprehensive cross-sectional study. Out of the total number of doctoral students (N=416), 274 participants completed the online questionnaire (response rate: 65.9%). The study questionnaire contained statements related to ethical competencies, self-assessed on a Likert scale. Data analysis included descriptive statistics and association tests (χ², t-test, Mann–Whitney).
Results The overall mean score of perceived ethical competencies was 4.01, indicating a high level of confidence in respondents’ own abilities. The highest scores were reported for competencies related to protecting the confidentiality of participants’ data, honest reporting of research results, and obtaining informed consent. Participants who had received training in research ethics reported significantly higher mean scores compared to those without such training (p < 0.05).
Conclusions Doctoral students report a high level of perceived ethical competencies; however, gaps remain in the areas of regulatory framework knowledge and methodological aspects of research, suggesting the need to strengthen targeted training in research ethics.
Referințe
1. Resnik DB. The ethics of research with human subjects: protecting people, advancing science, promoting trust. Cham: Springer; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68756-8
2. Kulju K, Stolt M, Suhonen R, Leino-Kilpi H. Ethical competence: a concept analysis. Nurs Ethics. 2016;23(4):401–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733014567025
3. Eriksson S, Helgesson G, Höglund AT. Being, doing, and knowing: developing ethical competence in health care. J Acad Ethics. 2007;5(2–4):207–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-007-9029-5
4. UNESCO. Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers. Paris: UNESCO; 2021.
5. Steneck NH. Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Sci Eng Ethics. 2006;12(1):53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00022268
6. Watts LL, Medeiros KE, Mulhearn TJ, Steele LM, Connelly S, Mumford MD. Are Ethics Training Programs Improving? A Meta-Analytic Review of Past and Present Ethics Instruction in the Sciences. Ethics Behav. 2017;27(5):351-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1182025
7. Francesca G, Ceruti S., Martini S. et al. Educating and Training in Research Integrity (RI): A Study on the Perceptions and Experiences of Early Career Researchers Attending an Institutional RI Course. J Acad Ethics 22, 413–430 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09497-1
8. Marrs SA, Quesada-Pallarès C, Nicolai KD, Severson-Irby EA, Martínez-Fernández JR. Measuring Perceived Research Competence of Junior Researchers. Front Psychol. 2022;13:834843. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.834843
9. Levin KA. Study design III: cross-sectional studies. Evid Based Dent. 2006;7(1):24–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400375
10. Setia MS. Methodology series module 3: cross-sectional studies. Indian J Dermatol. 2016;61(3):261–264. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.182410
11. Nulty DD. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assess Eval High Educ. 2008;33(3):301–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231
12. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 2024.
13. Paladi A, Mîța V, Șaptefrați L. Developing and validating a questionnaire on knowledge and attitudes in health research ethics. Mold J Health Sci. 2026;1(13):59-68. https://doi.org/10.52645/MJHS.2026.1.10
14. Norman G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010;15:625-632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
15. Boone H. N., Boone D. A. Analyzing Likert Data. Journal of Extension. 2012;50(2), Article 48. https://doi.org/10.34068/joe.50.02.48
16. Sullivan GM, Artino AR Jr. Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. J Grad Med Educ. 2013;5(4):541–542. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-5-4-18
17. Deci E, Ryan R. The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry. 2000;11(4):227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
18. Crowne DP, Marlowe D. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J Consult Psychol. 1960;24(4):349–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358
19. Paulhus DL. Measurement and control of response bias. In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS, editors. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press; 1991. p. 17–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-590241-0.50006-X.
20. Dunning D. The Dunning–Kruger effect: on being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 44. San Diego: Elsevier; 2011. p. 247–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6
21. 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 Behav. 2009;19(5):379–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903035380
22. Heitman E, Bulger RE. Assessing the educational literature in the responsible conduct of research for core content. Account Res. 2005;12(3):207–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620500217420
Această lucrare este licențiată în temeiul Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Adriana PALADI