Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D. Pengarang

1. Validation and Use of a Predictive Modeling Tool Employing Scientific Findings to Improve Responsible Conduct of Research Education Tyler J. Mulhearn, M.S.a, Logan L. Watts, Ph.D. a, E. Michelle Todd, B.S., Kelsey E. Medeiros, Ph.D.b, Shane Connelly, Ph.D.a, and Michael D. Mumford, Ph.D.a aDepartment of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA; bDepartment of Psychology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA ABSTRACT Although recent evidence suggests ethics education can be effective, the nature of specific training programs, and their effectiveness, varies considerably. Building on a recent path modeling effort, the present study developed and validated a predictive modeling tool for responsible conduct of research education. The predictive modeling tool allows users to enter ratings in relation to a given ethics training program and receive instantaneous evaluative information for course refinement. Validation work suggests the tool’s predicted outcomes correlate strongly (r = 0.46) with objective course outcomes. Implications for training program development and refinement are discussed. KEYWORDS Education; ethics; evaluation; path model; RCR; responsible conduct of research; tool; training 2. Cross-Field Comparison of Ethics Education: Golden Rules and Particulars Tyler J. Mulhearn, M.S., Logan L. Watts, Ph.D. , Brett S. Torrence, M.S., E. Michelle Todd, B.S., Megan R. Turner, B.S., Shane Connelly, Ph.D., and Michael D. Mumford, Ph.D. Department of Psychology, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA ABSTRACT Research misconduct negatively impacts the scientific community and society in general. Providing training in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) to researchers is one viable approach to minimizing research misconduct. Although recent evidence suggests ethics training can indeed be effective, little empirical work has examined the similarities and differences across fields. In the present study, we analyzed 62 empirical studies in engineering, biomedical science, social science, and mixed fields. The findings suggest certain instructional principles, or “golden rules,” apply generally to all fields. These golden rules include maintaining a field-specific or field-general approach and emphasizing processes in training. The findings also suggest that content areas contributing to instructional effectiveness vary as a function of field. Generally, it appears that all fields may benefit from taking a multi-pronged approach to ethics education wherein the salient field issues are covered. Implications for RCR education are discussed. KEYWORDS Cross field; ethics education; ethics training; field differences; responsible conduct of research