Europe PMC

This website requires cookies, and the limited processing of your personal data in order to function. By using the site you are agreeing to this as outlined in our privacy notice and cookie policy.

Graduate Socialization in the Responsible Conduct of Research: A National Survey on the Research Ethics Training Experiences of Psychology Doctoral Students.

Author information

Affiliations

  • 1. Fordham University Center for Ethics Education.
      Authors
    • Fisher CB 1
    (1 author)

ORCIDs linked to this article

Ethics & Behavior, 01 Nov 2009, 19(6):496-518
https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903275283 PMID: 23641128 PMCID: PMC3639435

Free full text in Europe PMC

Abstract 

Little is known about the mechanisms by which psychology graduate programs transmit responsible conduct of research (RCR) values. A national sample of 968 current students and recent graduates of mission-diverse doctoral psychology programs, completed a web-based survey on their research ethics challenges, perceptions of RCR mentoring and department climate, their ability to conduct research responsibility, and whether they believed psychology as a discipline promotes scientific integrity. Research experience, mentor RCR instruction and modeling, and department RCR policies predicted student RCR preparedness. Mentor RCR instruction, department RCR policies, and faculty modeling of RCR behaviors predicted confidence in the RCR integrity of the discipline. Implications for training are discussed.

Free full text 

Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Ethics Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 Apr 30.
Published in final edited form as:
Ethics Behav. 2009 Nov 1; 19(6): 496–518.
Published online 2009 Nov 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903275283
PMCID: PMC3639435
NIHMSID: NIHMS298915
PMID: 23641128

Graduate Socialization in the Responsible Conduct of Research: A National Survey on the Research Ethics Training Experiences of Psychology Doctoral Students

Celia B. Fisher, Adam L. Fried, and Lindsay G. Feldman
Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Abstract

Little is known about the mechanisms by which psychology graduate programs transmit responsible conduct of research (RCR) values. A national sample of 968 current students and recent graduates of mission-diverse doctoral psychology programs, completed a web-based survey on their research ethics challenges, perceptions of RCR mentoring and department climate, their ability to conduct research responsibility, and whether they believed psychology as a discipline promotes scientific integrity. Research experience, mentor RCR instruction and modeling, and department RCR policies predicted student RCR preparedness. Mentor RCR instruction, department RCR policies, and faculty modeling of RCR behaviors predicted confidence in the RCR integrity of the discipline. Implications for training are discussed.

Keywords: Ethics, Research, Responsible Conduct of Research, Mentoring, Department, Climate, Graduate Education, Psychology

Graduate programs are the primary training ground for socializing each new generation of psychologists in the values and ethical practices guiding the responsible conduct of research (RCR). Through departmental policies, mentoring and student involvement in research, graduate education in psychology creates the climate in which research integrity flourishes or flounders (Fisher, Wertz, & Goodman, in press). Psychology has over five decades of history promoting the responsible conduct of research through the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct (APA, 2002, Fisher, 2009; Canter, Bennett, Jones & Nagy, 1994; Hobbs, 1948; Sales & Folkman, 2000; Smith, 1976) and ethics scholarship influencing moral debate within the field and throughout the social sciences (e.g., Baumrind, 1964; McGaha & Korn, 1995; Melton, Koocher & Saks, 1983; Milgram, 1963). Although ethics complaints against psychological scientists are infrequent (APA, 2004 – 2008), like other disciplines, psychology has not escaped highly publicized cases of scientific misconduct (Needleman, 1993; Ernhart, Scarr, & Geneson, 1993; Salter, 1998; Sprague, 1993). Violations of research ethics regulations and professional standards, whether born of lack of awareness or understanding of RCR requirements or of malicious intent, undermine the overall integrity of the research enterprise (Eisen & Berry, 2002; Steneck, 2001). In recent years, increased public awareness of the effect of basic science and clinical trials on public health policy and health services along with some highly publicized cases involving charges of scientific misconduct (Eisen & Berry, 2002; CRI, 1995; NAS, 2002) have led the Department of Health and Human Services to increase requirements for RCR training of investigators conducting federally funded research (PHS, 2000, 2001) and prompted the Office of Research Integrity to provide guidelines on specific RCR core instructional areas. The current APA Ethics Code (APA, 2002) includes ethical standards corresponding to each of these RCR core areas, including data management, human participant and animal subject protections, publication practices and responsible authorship, peer review, and conflicts of interest. As vital as the commitment to research ethics continues to be within the field of psychology, however, little is known about how graduate programs transmit this commitment to students.

Ethics Courses and Research Experiences

Graduate psychology programs differ in mission, curricula, and the degree to which students are encouraged to consider research as a career goal and these differences may influence the extent of student socialization in the responsible conduct of research. For example, to satisfy APA program accreditation requirements, students in clinical, counseling and school psychology programs uniformly receive some type of formal ethics education, while ethical topics are often informally included within specific courses or through research apprenticeships in psychology programs devoted exclusively to research. Interestingly, Brown and Kalichman (1998) found that attending courses on research ethics and case discussions increased student’s sense of RCR preparedness but did not significantly alter perceptions of their own standards.

Different research designs and participant populations may also influence the extent and type of student exposure to research ethics challenges. At present however, we know little about the type of research and ethics-in-science challenges associated with graduate student research and how these might relate to students’ RCR self-efficacy and attitudes toward the integrity of the field. For example, students working with economically disadvantaged populations may gain more experience in deciding on fair, non-coercive incentives for research population, while those conducting deception studies will need to sharply focus on debriefing procedures. Students conducting research involving children or adults with impaired cognitive capacities may need to have more frequent discussions about developing and implementing appropriate informed consent procedures, while those conducting intervention and prevention research with high risk populations may face more frequent challenges regarding confidentiality and disclosure. Students involved in commercially-sponsored research programs are more likely to need information on ethical guidelines on conflicts of interest.

Department Research Ethics Climate

Empirical studies of students in counseling psychology programs have consistently demonstrated that departments that communicate support for research are more likely to have graduate students with positive attitudes toward research and research self-efficacy (Gelso, Mallinckrodt, & Judge, 1996; Kahn, 2001; Kahn & Scott, 1997). Similar findings are beginning to emerge in studies of RCR departmental climate in psychology and other science programs (Fisher, Fried et al, 2009; NAS, 2002; Anderson, Louis, & Earle, 1994). RCR department climate can affect student attitudes explicitly and implicitly. Explicit aspects of the RCR department climate include formal policies on research misconduct, efforts to make department and other relevant codes of scientific conduct known to students, the ease with which students can seek assistance in working with institutional review boards (IRBs), and departmental support in resolving ethical conflicts among students and faculty. Implicit department RCR characteristics include prevailing department norms and the relative weight in career advancement given research ethics versus research productivity, adherence to or casual disregard for standards of research conduct, and the modeling of concern for the rights and welfare of research participants.

Mentoring the Responsible Conduct of Research

The Council of Graduate Schools (1995) adopted a definition of mentors as people with career experience willing to share their knowledge and provide feedback on protégé performance, give emotional and moral encouragement, provide career opportunities, and model what an academic should be. In psychology, mentors have been described as available and invested, altruistic, ethical, and intentional role models who provide knowledge and advice to support the mentee’s pursuit of becoming a full member of the profession (Clark, Harden, & Johnson, 2000; Gilbert, 1985; Kitchner, 1992; Wilson & Johnson, 2001). Mentors can socialize students in the responsible conduct of research explicitly through direct instruction and implicitly through modeling and student observation of behaviors (Fisher, Fried et al., 2009; Johnson & Nelson, 1999; Swazey & Anderson, 1996). Explicit RCR mentoring includes direct instruction and guidance in becoming familiar with and adhering to research relevant federal regulations and APA Ethics Code standards, and procedures that best protect the rights and welfare of research participants. Implicit RCR mentoring socializes students through observation of mentors’ behaviors indicating a valuing or devaluing of the aspirational principles and ethical standards of scientific psychology. Stern & Elliot (1997) have argued that modeling of responsible conduct in research if effective, only teaches students what to do, but not why they are doing it. Thus both explicit and implicit mentoring is important if students are to understand both the “why’s” and “how’s” of RCR (Eisen & Berry, 2002).

RCR Preparedness and Confidence in the RCR Integrity of the Field

Recent empirical work on the qualities of graduate education that influence student interest in and their sense of competence to conduct independent research (Gelso, 1993; Hollingsworth & Fassinger, 2002) provide a blueprint for examining their socialization into the responsible conduct of psychological research For example research self-efficacy, defined as students’ beliefs about their ability to carry out and complete research relevant tasks (Bishop & Bieschke, 1998) has been found to be associated with the number of years and the positive nature of student research experiences, curriculum emphasis on research design, program support for faculty and student research, and the quality of faculty mentoring (Betz, 1997; Bieschke, Bishop, & Garcia, 1996;; Gelso, Mallinckrodt & Judge, 1996; Hill, 1997; Kahn, 2001; Kahn & Scott, 1997; Love, Bahner, Jones, & Nilsson, 2007). We might expect similar relationships among RCR preparedness and research experience, RCR departmental climate and RCR mentoring. The few studies on RCR preparedness across disciplines suggest that research ethics training lags behind students’ valuing of these skills (Brown & Kalichman, 1998; Meyers, Reid & Quina, 1998). It is similarly intuitive that the RCR values explicitly communicated to students through formal departmental policies and direct mentor instruction as well as those implicitly communicated through faculty and mentor behaviors would promote expectations that all members of the discipline are obligated to act in similar ways (Eisen & Berry, 2002; Fisher, 2003, 2009; NAS, 2002)

Gender and Ethnicity

Little is know about the influence of gender and ethnicity on students’ graduate research ethics experiences, impressions of RCR mentoring and department climate, their sense of RCR self-efficacy or confidence in the research integrity of the discipline. For example, although women now make up the majority of psychology graduate students, most faculty members, particularly senior faculty are men (Cohen & Gutek, 1991; Cronan-Hillix et al., 1986; Pion et al, 1996). Similarly, while the number of ethnic minority students in psychology has increased (Pion, 1996) the numbers are still very small (APA, 2008; Atkinson, Casas, & Neville, 1994). Some have reported that women and minority students typically have less access to mentoring and that good mentoring may help them gain advantages more frequently afforded to members of majority groups (Bogat & Redner, 1985; Cohen & Gutek, 1991; Gilbert & Rossman, 1992; Wilson & Johnson, 2001). Others have reported that women in academic settings are just as frequently mentored and just as satisfied with their mentorship as their male colleagues (Clark, Harden, & Johsnon, 2000; Fried et al, 1996), that ethnic minority students report greater satisfaction with their mentors than white counterparts (Mintz, Bartels, & Rideout, 1995), and that male and female mentors do not differ in providing for their protégés’ career and psychosocial needs (Clark, Harden, & Johnson, 2000; Hollingsworth & Fassinger, 2002; Nelson & Holloway, 1990).

The Current Study

The goal of the current study is to provide a national snapshot of how research experiences, mentoring and departmental climate contributes to psychology graduate students’ sense of RCR self-efficacy and their confidence in the integrity of the discipline of psychology. Five research questions guided our work:

  1. What types of research designs and research populations characterize graduate psychology students research experiences and how is this related to their familiarity with research ethics practices and ethical challenges?

  2. How do current and recent graduate students in psychology perceive the qualities of their RCR departmental climate and RCR mentored experiences?

  3. To what extent do students believe their graduate experiences have prepared them for independently implementing RCR practices in their own research and how is this related to their research experiences, course instruction, RCR departmental climate and RCR mentoring.

  4. To what extent do students have confidence in the RCR integrity of the discipline of psychology and how is that related to course instruction, RCR departmental climate and RCR mentoring?

  5. Does student and faculty gender and ethnicity or program mission affect the perceived quality of RCR training, RCR preparedness and confidence in field integrity?

General Method

Participants

Participants (Mean age = 28, Range = 18 – 64) represented a national sample of 968 (20% response rate; 71% female, 80% non-Hispanic white) current or recent graduates (2002 – 2006) of geographically and mission-diverse doctoral programs in psychology in the United States.2 The over-representation of females and non-Hispanic white students parallel those reported in the field (Hoffer et al., 2006). Detailed data on student and program characteristics are presented in Table 1 and Table 2 in the Results section.

Table 1

Student Characteristics (N = 968)

Student CharacteristicsNumber of
Respondents		Percentage of All
Respondents
Gender
Female71774%
Male25126%
Age*
  18–2971274%
  30–3921222%
  40–49293%
  50–5991%
  60+1<1%
Ethnicity
  American Indian/Alaska Native1<1%
  African American/Black344%
  East Asian485%
  Hispanic/Latino475%
  Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander2<1%
  Non-Hispanic White77680%
  Southeast Asian141%
  Biracial293%
Degree Program
  Ph.D.91294%
  Psy.D.546%
  Ed.D.2<1%
Student Status
  Not Yet Begun Master’s161%
  MA in process31933%
  Ph.D. in process47149%
  Ph.D. completed16217%
Graduate Research Assistant82785%
Primary & Secondary Career Goal
  Research41242%
  Teaching24125%
  Professional Practice27929%
  Industrial/Organizational374%
Student Publications
  None24826%
  One20221%
  Two19020%
  Three10410%
  Four or more22423%
Student Presentations
  None9510%
  One9110%
  Two9710%
  Three10210%
  Four or More58360%
Completed a Course Involving Research Ethics65368%
  Basic or Applied Research23050%
  Scientist-Practitioner36881%
  Practitioner4396%
  Psychometrics267%
  Industrial/Organizational1083%

Table 2

Department and Mentor Characteristics

Number of
Respondents		Percentage of All
Respondents
Department Characteristics
  Completed a class that included research ethics57660%
  Program
    Clinical Psychology34035%
    Social19721%
    Developmental9710%
    Cognitive Psych.788%
    Counseling Psychology465%
    School Related364%
    Consulting/IO303%
    Experimental - Physiological283%
    Neuropsychology202%
    Community Psychology182%
    Legal Psychology111%
    Health101%
    Human Factors61%
    Evaluation4<1%
    Other475%
  Geographic Region
    West (Pacific & Mountain states)22423%
    Midwest (Midwest/Central States)27929%
    Northeast17818%
    South28730%
  Number of Faculty in Graduate Program
   ≤ 2073676%
   > 2023224%
  Number of Students in Graduate Program
   1–1069972%
   11–2016717%
   21 or more10211%
  Number of grad programs
   1–3 programs44646%
   4–6 programs45047%
   More than 7727%
  Training Mission
   Basic or Applied Research45848%
   Scientist-Practitioner45046%
   Practitioner455%
   Psychometrics3<1%
   Industrial/Organizational121%
  Required Course Involving Research Ethics58160%
   Basic or Applied Research18741%
   Scientist-Practitioner35078%
   Practitioner3680%
   Psychometrics00%
   Industrial/Organizational867%
Mentor Characteristics
Gender
   Female42844%
   Male54056%
Ethnicity
   American Indian/Alaska Native2<1%
   Black222%
   East Asian/Southeast Asian273%
   South Asian81%
   Hispanic/Latino313%
   Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander61%
   Non-Hispanic White84387%
   Biracial131%
   Other / Unknown162%
Years Working with Mentor
   1–2 years33835%
   3–4 years37238%
   4 or more years25827%

Procedures

Participants were recruited through announcements in American Psychological Association (APA) and the Association for Psychological Science (APS) newsletters and email blasts to approximately 4,800 students whose email addresses were listed in association directories. To obtain a representative sample of ethnic-minority students we over sampled from APA Division 45, Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues and contacted graduate psychology programs at schools identified as Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Since nationally a greater proportion of psychology students are in scientist/practitioner or practitioner programs, efforts were also made to over-sample students in basic and applied research programs through outreach to department chairs and program directors resulting in approximately equal numbers of respondents from basic/applied research (48%) and scientist practitioner (46%) programs. Similar efforts to recruit students in industrial-organizational and psychometrics programs were not as successful (see Table 2).

The announcements directed students to a website describing the study. To be included, respondents had to have conducted or engaged in conducting graduate faculty mentored research involving human participants. To protect anonymity, the web site was constructed with a firewall made up of an integrated collection of security measures that prevented anyone (including the investigators) from identifying participants’ Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. The study was approved by the University Institutional Review Board (IRB). Students viewed the informed consent information on the home page of the web site prior to beginning the survey and students could withdraw at any time prior to submitting the completed survey. Students received an electronic $30 Barnes and Noble gift certificate for completing the survey.

Measures

Demographic Questionnaire

The survey began with demographic questions on student, department, and mentor characteristics (see Table 1 and Table 2). In all parts of the survey, research mentor was defined as “the faculty member who has/had the primary responsibility for supervising your Master’s, doctoral, or other graduate level independent psychology research” and, in the event a student has had multiple mentors throughout graduate school, were instructed students to select the mentor with “the greatest influence (positive or negative) on your development as a researcher.” The first part of the survey also asked specific questions regarding student overall satisfaction with RCR mentoring and department climate, whether students had taken an ethics course, the number of years they had worked with their mentor, publication record and questions about the research design, population, and ethical procedures and challenges associated with students’ mentored research (see Table 2 and Table 3).

Table 3

Student Research Interest and Nature of Mentored Research

Number of
Respondents		Percentage of All
Respondents
Research Design
Intervention10911%
  Non-intervention/Correlational39941%
  Non-intervention/Experimental40242%
  Other586%
Participants- Percentage Minority
25% or less67572%
50% or more26928
Participants – Economically Disadvantaged
25% or less72175%
50% or more24725%
Participants Health Status
Healthy/No Identified Disorder70072%
At-Risk for or Diagnosed with Physical or Mental Health Disorder17118%
Balanced Health and At-risk or Diagnosed9710%
Chance of Harm to Participant if Confidential Information Disclosed
Not Likely69171%
Somewhat Likely21222%
Very Likely657%
Greater than Minimal Risk to Participants344%
Applied for a Certificate of Confidentiality17518%
Obtained Guardian Permission27929%
Ethical Challenges (M = 1.70; Mode = 1.00)
Participant Recruitment3345%
Informed Consent25326%
Confidentiality25126%
Participant Compensation17018%
Debriefing15316%
Adverse Participant Reactions14015%
Dissemination889%
Participant Risk839%
Risk to Family or Community202%
Other15816%

The Responsible Conduct of Research – Department Climate (RCR-DC) Scales (Fisher et al., 2009)

The RCR-DC consists of 2 subscales, both measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = extremely false, 6 = extremely true) that have been found to have good inter-item reliability and construct validity as assessed by significant correlations with the Research Training Environment Scale –Revised - Short Form (Kahn & Miller, 2000). The RCR Department Climate-Policy subscale (RCR DC-PY) begins with the stem “In my graduate psychology program….” Students respond to 15 items measuring explicit RCR departmental policies such as: “There is a clear policy for handling research ethics complaints,” “Adherence to research ethics is carefully monitored,” “Concern for the welfare of research participants is stressed in courses.” The RCR Department Climate – Practices subscale (RCR-DC-PR) consists of nine items tapping implicit RCR climate through perceived departmental acceptance of student and faculty research misconduct, including: “Graduate research assistants are confused about their roles and responsibilities,” “Research productivity that violates ethical standards is rewarded,” “Research funds are misused.” Inter-rater reliability for both subscales in the present sample were α = .91 and α = .84, respectively. Both the RCR-DC-PY and RCR=DC-PR were significantly correlated with student overall satisfaction with their department (r = .39 and −.33, respectively, p < .001) and with overall satisfaction with the RCR department climate (r = .54 and −.37, respectively, p < .001).

Mentoring the Responsible Conduct of Research (MRCR) Scales (Fisher et al., 2009)

The MRCR instrument consists of 2 subscales found to have good inter-item reliability and construct validity (significant correlations with the Advisory Working Alliance Index- Student Version; Schlosser & Gelso, 2001). The MRCR-Instruction subscale (MRCR-I) begins with the stem “My research mentor gave me helpful training about …” and using a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = extremely unhelpful, 6 = extremely helpful) measures the extent to which mentors provided explicit instruction and practical guidance in 19 RCR areas including informed consent, confidentiality protections, appropriate storage and collection data, and fair and non-coercive payment incentives. The MRCR-Modeling subscale (MRCR-M) consists of 10, 6 –point Likert type items (1 = extremely false, 6 = extremely true) assessing the mentor’s implicit modeling of RCR behaviors and supervisory style including: “conducted his/her own research ethically,” “was available to discuss questions about research ethics,” “discussed authorship of publications that might emerge from my research.” Inter-rater reliability for both subscales in the present sample was α = .95 and α = .93, respectively. Both the MRCR-I and MRCR-M were significantly correlated with student overall satisfaction with RCR mentoring (r = .62 and .66, respectively, p < .001).

The Responsible Conduct of Research – Student Preparedness (RCR-P) (Fisher et al., 2009)

The RCR-P measures the degree to which current and recently graduated students from psychology doctoral programs feel they are prepared to implement ethical procedures in their research activities and has good inter-item reliability and construct validity (significant correlations with the Self-Efficacy in Research Measure, Kahn & Scott, 1997). This 23 item 6-point Likert Type Scale (1 = extremely false, 6 = extremely true). scale begins with the stem “At this point in my research career, I feel my graduate training has prepared me to…” and includes items such as “Assign appropriate authorship credit for publications,” “Know when it is ethically appropriate to disclose a research participant’s confidential information,” and “Identify financial or personal conflicts of interests that could bias my research.” Reliability for the RCR-P in the current study was α = .95.

The Responsible Conduct of Research-Field Integrity Scale (RCR-I) (Fisher et al, 2009)

The RCR-I measures the degree to which students’ graduate training has influenced their views of RCR practices in the discipline of psychology. This 12-item measure scored on a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = extremely dissatisfied, 6 = extremely satisfied) begins with the stem “Based on my psychology graduate training, I believe …” and includes statements such as “Research that was conducted unethically is not accepted for publication in psychology journals,” “Psychology graduate students receive adequate training in research ethics,” “The public can trust psychologists not to fabricate data,” “Conducting research ethically is the norm in psychology.” Reliability for the RCR-P in the current study was α = .89.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In their development of the RCR scales, Fisher et al. (2009) conducted exploratory factor analyses on the responses of two independent samples of current and recent graduate students from doctoral programs in psychology comparable in gender, ethnicity, and program mission to the current sample. To verify the factor structure reported by the authors, a CFA was conducted on the responses of the current sample to the four RCR scales using AMOS 7.0 (Arbuckle, 2006). As recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999), several indices were used to assess model fit: The comparative fit index (CFI), the global fit index (GFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the root mean square residual (RMSR), were also calculated. In general, all measures indicated adequate to good model fit. For the MRCR Scales, the GFI and CFI ranged from .82 to .88 and the RMSR and RMSEA were approximately .08. The Department Climate scales exhibited similar model fit, with the GFI and CFI ranging from .83 to .88, the RMSR equaling .07, and the RMSEA at .08. The RCR-Student Preparedness scale also exhibited adequate to good model fit, with GFI and CFI ranging from .85 to .88, RMSR equaling .05, and the RMSEA value at .08. Finally, the RCR-Integrity of the Discipline Scale also had acceptable to good index values (GFI = .91, CFI = .90, RMSR = .04, RMSEA = .10).

Results

General Student, Program and Mentor Characteristics

Student characteristics

As illustrated in Table 1, the majority of students were female, non-Hispanic white, between the ages of 18 – 29 (M = 28 years, SD = 5.34, Range = 18 – 64) working towards a Ph.D. degree, and currently conducting their Master’s or doctoral research. More than half of all participants (59%) indicated that they had been enrolled in their doctoral program for three years or more. Overall, students in this sample were highly experienced and interested in research. Most reported they had experience as a graduate research assistant, had collaborated with their mentor on at least one publication, presented at least one paper at a professional meeting, and 42% and 34% indicated research was their primary or secondary career goal, respectively. As expected, the number of years in graduate school was positively correlated with number of co-authored publications (r = .34, p < .001) and presentations (r = .29, p < .001). Although we recognize the serious conceptual limitations of grouping individuals from different self-identified ethnocultural groups together (Trimble & Fisher, 2006), the sample sizes of each individual ethnocultural group of both students and faculty were too small for statistical comparisons. We therefore collapsed the different ethnocultural categories into an “ethnic minority” student or faculty category to highlight potential differences in RCR research relevant experiences when warranted and to reflect the fact that within graduate programs in psychology non-Hispanic white students and faculty remain a majority (Hoffer et al., 2006).

Program characteristics

As illustrated in Table 2, the highest concentration of students was enrolled in Clinical followed by Social, Developmental, Cognitive, and Counseling programs. Programs were situated throughout the four major regions of the United States and within urban, suburban and rural locations. The majority of students attended graduate programs that admitted 10 or fewer students a year, had 20 or fewer faculty, and offered four or more graduate programs.

The sample was equally split between students enrolled in programs whose training mission was described as scientist-practitioner and basic/applied research with fewer than 7% describing their program training missions as practitioner, industrial-organizational, or psychometrics. Given these percentages, subsequent analyses specifically focused on program mission include only comparisons between basic/applied research and scientist-practitioner programs. Slightly more men (29%) then women (21%) were enrolled in basic/applied research programs and more females (79%) than males (71%) in scientist-practitioner programs (χ2 (1) = 7.54, p < .005). Significantly more students in basic/applied research (61%) compared to scientist practitioner programs (29%) indicated research was their primary career goal, χ2 (3) = 235.90 p < .001. There were no significant differences between students from scientist-practitioner and basic-applied research programs in the status of their Master’s or doctoral research, number of publications or presentations, selecting research as a secondary career goal (36% and 35%, respectively), or whether they had worked as a graduate research assistant.

Sixty percent of students reported that their programs had a required course that included research ethics. Significantly more scientist-practitioner (78%) required a course involving research ethics than basic/applied research (41%) programs (χ2 (2) = 128.60, p < .001) and not surprisingly, students in scientist-practitioner (82%) were more likely than students in basic/applied research (50%) programs to have completed such a course (χ2 (1) = 100.50, p < .001).

Mentor characteristics

As illustrated in Table 2, 56% of mentors were reported to be male and 87% non-Hispanic white. Females (48%) were more likely than males (33%) to have a female mentor (χ2 (1) = 14.72, p < .001). Students self-identified as ethnic minority (27%) were more likely than non-Hispanic white students (8%) to be mentored by ethnic-minority faculty (χ2 (1) = 48.60, p < .001). Preliminary analyses on RCR scale scores yielded no significant effects of student-mentor pairings by ethnicity or gender. The mean number of years working with their mentor was 3.44 years (SD = 1.76). Of those students working on their dissertation, 48% reported their dissertation mentor also mentored their Master’s or other graduate level research.

Student Mentored Research

Methodologies and populations

As illustrated in Table 3, the majority of students were working on mentored research that entailed non-intervention designs (89%), with non-Hispanic white (72%), middle class (75%) populations who did not have identified mental or physical disorders (72%). Students self-identified as ethnic-minority (49%) were more likely than non-Hispanic white students (24%) to conduct research with populations consisting of 50% or more ethnic minority participants (χ2 (1) = 38.15, p < .001); similarly, ethnic minority faculty (49%) were more likely than non-minority faculty (26%) to be mentoring student research involving at least 50% ethnic minority participants (χ2 (1) = 23.93, p < .001).

Significantly more intervention research was reported by students in scientist-practitioner (15%) compared to basic/applied research (6%) programs, χ2 (1) = 20.95, p < .001) and for research involving populations with physical or mental disorders (24% vs. 7%, χ2 (1) = 55.63, p < .001). No differences were found for research designs by participant ethnicity or economic status. However, when research included 50% or more ethnic minority participants the samples were 6 times more likely to be economically disadvantaged than samples with non-minority participants, χ2 (1) = 266.6, p < .001. Ethnic minority research populations were also more likely to have identified mental or physical disorders (36% vs. 26% of studies involving health disorders, χ2 (1) = 10.73, p < .001).

RCR Procedures and Challenges

RCR procedures

As illustrated in Table 3, almost all students reported submitting their research for IRB review. Less than a third of student research involved obtaining guardian permission. Guardian permission was more likely to be obtained for intervention (39%) compared to non-intervention (28%) studies (χ2 (1) = 5.64, p < .02). The majority of students offered participants some type of compensation, with percentages higher for non-intervention (79%) than intervention (62%) research (χ2 (1) = 15.50, p < .001). Eighteen percent of students applied for a PHS Certificate of Confidentiality; although 36% checked “I don’t know” for this question. Approximately one in five students were conducting research that included deception, the majority in non-intervention (22%) compared with intervention (7%) studies (χ2 (1) = 12.99, p < .001). Half of all deception studies were conducted by students in social psychology programs.

RCR challenges

Almost all students described their research as minimal risk. We asked students to indicate how many of nine specific ethical procedures they encountered during their research. All but one reported at least one ethical challenge. The total number of ethical challenges a student reported was not significantly related to the status of their research or whether a student had completed a course that included research ethics. The most common challenges were participant recruitment, confidentiality, and informed consent. With respect to confidentiality concerns, one-third believed that it was somewhat (23%) or very likely (7%) that participants might be harmed if confidential research information was disclosed. The greater the harm from disclosures, the more likely students were to report that they had obtained a Certificate of Confidentiality (χ2 (2) = 31.46, p < .001) or found confidentiality or informed consent to be an ethical challenge for their research (χ2 (4) = 27.25, p < .001, χ2 (2) = 62.81, p < .05, respectively). About one in four students indicated informed consent presented a challenge during their research especially for students who needed to obtain guardian consent (χ2 (1) = 20.57, p < .001) or whose population was economically disadvantaged (χ2 (1) = 12.95, p < .001).

RCR Department Climate

RCR Departmental Policy

The mean score on the RCR-DC-Policy subscale was 4.83 (SD = .80, Range = 1 – 6, with 4 = “somewhat true” and 5 = “mostly true”) indicating that in general participants felt their department had adequate RCR policies. Fourteen percent had subscale scores below 4, suggesting a need for improvement in RCR departmental policies. Perusal of individual items suggests that departments were most likely to have policies conveying that all students and faculty must comply with the APA Ethics Code (98%) and least likely to have written policies on how to avoid research related conflicts of interest (75%). Although students in scientist-practitioner (M = 4.90) and basic/applied research programs (M = 4.74) differed somewhat on ratings for RCR departmental policies (F (1, 906) = 9.27, p = .002), the partial Eta squared did not exceed .01, indicating program mission accounted for less than 1% of the overall (effect + error) variance.

RCR Departmental Practices

The majority of students believed their departments did not encourage or condone the unethical conduct of research by students or faculty (M = 1.88, SD = .89, Range = 1 – 6, where scores of 1–3 departmental acceptance of unethical conduct was extremely to somewhat false). One out of every ten students had overall mean scores over three, suggesting that acceptance of unethical behaviors was at least “somewhat true” in their department. Perusal of individual items suggests that the majority of students believe that research productivity that violates ethical standards will not be rewarded in their department (93%). Although most students believed their departments adequately supervised research assistants, 26% endorsed the statement describing research assistants as confused about their roles and responsibilities.

Multivariate analyses yielded significant differences for RCR-DC-Practices scores (where higher scores indicated poorer practices) for: basic/applied versus science-practitioner mission (M = 1.95 vs. 1.80, F (1, 906) = 7.0, p < .01); males versus females (M = 1.97 vs. 1.84, F (1, 966) = 4.04, p < .05); and ethnic minority versus non-Hispanic white (M = 2.03 vs. 1.84, F (1, 966) = 9.56, p < .05). However, for all these analyses the partial Eta squared did not exceed .01, indicating these variables accounted for less than 1% of the overall (effect + error) variance.

Correlations

Given the large number of demographic variables and large sample size, we used a conservative estimate of significance p < .002. As indicated in Table 4, students who had completed an ethics course were significantly more likely to report departmental RCR policies and less likely to report department support for unethical supervisory or research behaviors. Not surprisingly, students who reported more unacceptable departmental student and faculty practices were more likely to have encountered more ethical challenges in their mentored research. Unexpectedly, the more time the student reported being enrolled in the doctoral program and the more years spent with their mentor, the lower they rated overall RCR departmental faculty practices.

Table 4

Correlations

RCR
Preparedness		RCR-Field
Integrity		RCR-DC-
Policy		RCR-DC-
Practices		MRCR-
Instruction		MRCR-
Modeling
RCR-Preparedness1.60(**).68(**)−.41(**).63(**).57(**)
RCR-Field Integrity.66(**)−.49 (**).45(**).42(**)
RCR-DC Policy−.53(**).52(**).48(**)
RCR-DC Practices−.31(**)−.33 (**)
MRCR-Instruction.72(**)
Number of publications.19 (**).02−.05.01.13 (**).13 (**)
Completed ethics Course.11 (**).11 (**).19 (**)−.10 (**).14(**).08(*)
Status of research.09 (**)−.03−.10 (**).008.01−004
Years with mentor.12 (**).01−.09 (**)−.01.052.002
Ethics challenges−.06 (*)−.05−.04.09 (**)−.003−.03
*p ≤ .05
**p ≤ .01
***p ≤ .001

RCR Mentoring

RCR Mentoring Instruction

In general, participants were positive about the training their mentor provided in the responsible conduct of research. The mean score on the MRCR-Instruction scale was 4.60 (SD = .93; Range = 1 – 6), with a score of 4 indicating mentors were “somewhat” and 5 “mostly helpful” in providing direct instruction about RCR practices. About one in five (21%) had mean scores below 4, indicating that their mentors were “extremely” to “somewhat” unhelpful. A perusal of responses to individual items suggests that mentors were most likely to provide specific guidance on prohibitions against data fabrication (89%) and least likely to provide specific direction on how to avoid personal or financial conflicts of interest that might bias data collection.

RCR Mentor Modeling

The MRCR-Modeling subscale yielded a mean of 5.04 (SD = .88; Range = 1 – 6) with a score of 5 indicating that statements describing their mentors as acting responsibly in their own research and in student supervision was “mostly true”. About one in eight had mean scores below 4, indicating that overall they did not view their mentors’ behaviors as ethically responsible. Perusal of individual items suggests that mentors were most likely to be perceived by students as conducting the mentor’s own research ethically (96%) and least likely to initiate supervisory discussions with the student about research ethics (67%). Although the MRCR-I means for students in scientist-practitioner (4.68, SD = .88) and basic-applied research (4.51, SD = 1.00) programs were significantly different (F (1, 908) = 6.38, p < .02), the partial Eta squared did not exceed .01, indicating program mission accounted for less than 1% of the overall (effect + error) variance.

Correlations

As illustrated in Table 4, the number of publications co-authored with the mentor was significantly correlated with both the MRCR-I and MRCR-M. Moreover, students who had completed a course involving RCR ethics, who rated RCR departmental policies positively, and whose departments were not perceived as approving research misconduct were significantly more likely to rate mentors more highly on RCR instruction and modeling. RCR mentor ratings were not related to student gender, ethnicity or the number of years the student had worked with his or her mentor.

Student RCR Preparedness

In general, participants felt well prepared to conduct ethically-responsible research (RCR- Preparedness: M = 5.10, SD = .67, where 5 = “mostly true”); only 6% felt they were at least somewhat unprepared to conduct research in an ethical manner. Perusal of individual item means suggests that on average students feel most prepared to avoid behaviors representing research misconduct (e.g. plagiarism, inaccurate reporting of results) and least prepared to know when it is appropriate to share data with other scientists and how to accurately report expenditures to institutions and funding agencies.

As illustrated in Table 4, RCR Preparedness was significantly correlated with the RCR mentoring and departmental climate scores and was significantly higher in students who had more publications, were further advanced in their doctoral studies, had completed a course that included research ethics, and had more years with their mentor. There were no significant effects of number of ethical challenges, student gender, ethnicity, career goals, or program mission.

Hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to test the relative contribution of variables significantly correlated with RCR Preparedness in the following order: status of student research and number of publications (Block 1); number of ethical challenges, years working with mentor, and completion of an ethics course (Block 2); and MRCR-I, MRCR-M, RCR-DC-PY and RCR-DC-Pr (Block 3). As illustrated in Table 5, a significant model emerged with adjusted R square accounting for 4%, 5%, and 61% of variance for blocks 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Beta values in Block 3 (the full model), indicated that along with number of publications and number of years working with their mentor, both RCR mentoring instruction and mentor modeling, and RCR department policies, but not RCR departmental practices independently contributed to the variance in students’ RCR preparedness.

Table 5

Completed Ethics Course, Years with Mentor, Number of Publications, MRCR and RCR-DC Subscales Regressed onto RCR-Preparedness Scores

R2F Changeβt
Block 1.04.88
Status of research.02.49
Number of publications.185.37***
Block 2.056.42***
Status of research−.05−1.28
Number of publications.185.12***
Total Challenges−.07−2.25*
Number of years working with mentor.092.09*
Completed an ethics course.123.70***
Block 3.61207.07***
Status of research.041.51
Number of publications.125.34***
Total challenges−.04−1.79
Number of years working with mentor.082.91**
Completed an ethics course−.03−1.43
MRCR Instruction.268.57***
MRCR Modeling.124.00***
RCR-DC-Policy.4917.94***
RCR-DC-Practices−.02−1.01
*p ≤ .05
**p ≤ .01
***p ≤ .001

Attitudes Toward the RCR Integrity of the Field of Psychology

Overall, students believed members of the discipline of psychology conducted research responsibly (M = 4.92, SD = .64, with a score of 5 indicating positive statements about the field were mostly true), Only 7% had mean scores indicating overall impressions that psychological science as a field was not conducted responsibly. Perusal of individual item means suggested students were most confident that psychology as a discipline valued and encouraged its members to conduct research ethically. They were less sure that psychology students received adequate training in research ethics or that the field had adequate safeguards to ensure psychologists engage in ethical research.

As illustrated in Table 4, completing a course that included research ethics was significantly correlated with RCR-Field Integrity scores. These scores were not related to number of publications, research status, years with mentor or number of ethics challenges. In addition, there were no significant differences in terms of participant ethnicity, graduate program mission, or specific program type for RCR-Field Integrity scores. Females (M = 4.94, SD = .62) gave slightly higher scores for the integrity of the discipline than males (4.85), F (1, 907) = 5.39, p = .002), however Eta squared did not exceed .01 indicating gender accounted for less than 1% of the overall (effect + error) variance.

Hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to test the relative contribution of variables significantly correlated with RCR-Field Integrity with completed an ethics course entered in Block 1 followed by MRCR-I, MRCR-M, RCR-DC-PY and RCR-DC-Pr entered in Block 2. As illustrated in Table 6, a significant model emerged with adjusted R square accounting for 1% and 47% of the variance for blocks 1and 2 respectively. Beta values in Block 2 (the full model), indicated that both RCR department policies and RCR departmental practices and RCR Mentoring instruction, but not mentor modeling, independently contributed to the variance in students’ RCR preparedness.

Table 6

Completed Ethics Course, MRCR and RCR-DC Subscales Regressed onto RCR- Field Integrity Scores

R2F Changeβt
Block 1.0111.88**
Completed an ethics course.113.45***
Block 2.47209.71**
Completed an ethics course−.01−.40
MRCR Instruction.102.95**
MRCR Modeling.121.41
RCR-DC-Policy.4915.32***
RCR-DC-Practices−.02−6.79***
*p ≤ .05
**p ≤ .01
***p ≤ .001

Discussion

The aim of this national survey was to contribute to a small but growing empirically-based understanding of graduate student socialization in the responsible conduct of psychological research. We sought to accomplish this by focusing on five research questions, each of which is discussed below.

Research Design and RCR Challenges

On the one hand it is heartening to find that for this national sample, the large majority of psychology students are obtaining experience in submitting their research to Institutional Review Boards. The majority of research conducted by students was characterized as minimal risk and thus it is not surprising that ethical challenges were few. Students who listed informed consent as a challenge were more likely to work with populations that required guardian consent or were economically disadvantaged. The fact that students are aware that these populations are more likely to challenge the efficacy of general cookbook ethical procedures and rules with regard to informed consent is also encouraging. The more likely students anticipated participants might be harmed by disclosures of experimentally obtained information, the more likely confidentiality was listed as a challenge and the more likely students were to have applied for a Certificate of Confidentiality. That one-third of students indicated they did not know if they had applied for a Certificate of Confidentiality suggests that graduate training might place greater emphasis on explaining the array of procedures available to protect participant confidentiality.

On the other hand, it is disheartening to learn that the research exposure of a large national sample of students with experience and career interests in conducting psychological science is limited to non-intervention studies, involving non-Hispanic white populations without identified mental or physical disorders. This should raise red flags for the profession of psychology as it pursues initiatives to expand adoption of training in evidence-based practice in clinical care (Luebbe, Radcliffe, Callands, Green & Thorn, 2007). Without experience conducting intervention research involving populations with mental health disorders students, pursuing careers in psychological science will not have the training to independently conduct studies of treatment efficacy and effectiveness and practicing psychologists will be deprived of experiences that can assist them in critically evaluating the relevance of evidence-based practices to their everyday professional activities.

While the discipline of psychology has increasingly called for multicultural competence in research, practice, and ethics training (Fisher, 2009; Lyon & Cotler, 2007; Ponterotto, Casas, Suzuki, & Alexader, 2001; Magyar-Moe et al., 2005; Rogers-Sirin, 2008; Sue & Sue, 2003; Trimble & Fisher, 2006), our data raise concerns that students who are most likely to pursue careers in psychological science or to incorporate research findings into their professional practice have little direct experience conducting research with ethnic minority populations. Moreover, those that conduct research involving ethnic minority groups are likely to study only those with mental disorders or who are economically disadvantaged, while those researching majority group members largely study healthy middle class populations. Such restrictions on research training means that psychological science may fail to provide data on normative and non-normative mental health functioning across diverse populations needed to help practicing psychologists accurately identify mental health and mental disorders in these populations

RCR Departmental Climate and Mentoring

Overall, students positively rated psychology departments as providing explicit policies promoting the responsible conduct of research and creating an atmosphere that encouraged respect for and adherence to research ethics principles and practices. Students were similarly positive about the explicit RCR knowledge communicated to them through mentoring and the implicit endorsement of RCR values conveyed though mentor behaviors. Responses on measures of RCR departmental climate, mentoring, and preparedness converged to highlight how to recognize and avoid conflicts of interest in research as an area that needs increased attention in psychology graduate programs (Pachter, Fox, Zimbardo & Antonuccio, 2007). Of some concern is that one out of every 10 students had subscale scores suggesting that some departments are too lax in their support for and monitoring of student and faculty ethics related research endeavors. Of particular note, is that on the RCR-DC-Practices subscale, one in four students thought graduate research assistants were confused about their roles and responsibilities. This concern was echoed in the MRCR subscales, where one in five students felt their mentors were somewhat if not very unhelpful in providing explicit RCR guidance and one out of three students indicated their mentors did not provide adequate RCR supervision. Not surprisingly, responses to the item tapping students’ evaluation of the success of the field in providing adequate RCR (on the RCR Integrity scale) was among the lowest scores.

RCR Socialization Outcomes: RCR Preparedness and Integrity of the Field

In this study, perceived RCR preparedness and confidence in the RCR integrity of the field were considered outcomes of student RCR relevant research experiences, coursework, departmental climate and mentoring, Scores on the RCR Preparedness scale suggest that students in our sample had a heightened sense of RCR self-efficacy. This study cannot determine whether this reflects students’ actual RCR competence, is a product of social desirability, or is inflated due to naïveté about the demands of RCR when research is conducted independently. However, the fact that RCR Preparedness scores were significantly associated with number of student publications, completing a course that included research ethics, and more years working with their mentor, suggests that this sense of self-efficacy, at least compared in relative terms, is realistic. While all four RCR departmental and mentoring subscales were correlated with RCR Preparedness, it is of interest to note when entered simultaneously in a multiple regression, the modeling of RCR by departmental faculty did not exert an independent effect on RCR preparedness.

A different pattern emerged in the relationship between students’ confidence in the integrity of the field and implicit RCR mentoring and departmental climate scores. Perhaps not surprisingly given the fact that student respondents were highly interested and experienced in research, their scores reflected an overall confidence in the RCR integrity of psychological science. Of interest is the finding of the significant role that departmental support for faculty and student RCR practices played in students’ confidence in the field. Thus, while students’ confidence in their RCR self-efficacy is advanced when research mentors are perceived to act responsibly, the behaviors of departmental faculty are more compelling in strengthening or weakening student confidence in the RCR integrity of the field as a whole.

Program Mission and Student and Mentor Gender and Ethnicity

The final aim of this study was to shed light on how program mission and student and mentor gender and ethnicity might influence students’ RCR relevant experiences and attitudes With respect to program mission, students who responded to this survey (approximately 20% of those who were sent emails), were highly involved and interested in research; and except for primary career goals, students from basic/applied research and scientist practitioner programs did not differ in experience as graduate research assistants, publications and professional presentations nor in perceptions of RCR department climate, mentoring, preparedness or integrity of the field. Scientist-practitioners were more likely to be involved in intervention studies, but even in these programs the percentages were very small (15%). As expected, students in scientist-practitioner programs were more likely than those in basic/applied research to have taken a course involving research ethics and to have programs that required such a course. Thus, it would appear as if accreditation standards are contributing to program requirements that encourage ethics socialization not only for practice but for the responsible conduct of research.

As found in previous work (Fisher et al., 2009), neither gender nor ethno-cultural identification influenced student evaluations of RCR relevant mentor and department characteristics, their sense of RCR self-efficacy or attitudes toward the RCR integrity of the field. Although faculty members were more like to be male and non-Hispanic white, our data suggests that, when feasible, it appears as if female students are more likely to seek out female mentors and ethno-cultural minority students are more likely seek out minority faculty, although such pairings did not significantly influence students’ RCR attitudes. However, it is of interest that students who self-identified or identified their mentor as a member of an ethno-cultural group were significantly more likely to conduct research with populations consisting of 50% or more minorities.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

The web-based data collection methods used in this study successfully drew a large sample of graduate psychology students from mission and geographically diverse programs. Although, respondents were more likely to be female and non-Hispanic white, the percentages reflect the status of the field (American Psychological Association Center for Psychology Workforce Analysis and Research, 2008). Nonetheless, while the sample was large enough to be confident about gender influenced patterns of responding, it was not sufficient to fully explore whether student ethno-cultural identification plays a role in how they perceive their socialization into the responsible conduct of psychological science. Students who chose to respond to the survey appeared to be more experienced and interested in research as a career goal than students nationwide. Particularly high percentages of students in scientist-practitioner programs indicated research was a primary or secondary career goal. Future studies are needed to explore whether student interest and experience in research is a product or predictor of positively perceived RCR departmental climate and mentoring experiences, and RCR socialization outcomes.

Despite these limitations the present study’s results have implications for RCR training in graduate psychology programs. First, it appears from the responses of our national sample that students with relatively high interest in research are crying out for more direct supervision in how to responsibly conduct their own research and what is expected of them as research assistants. Second, as psychological science becomes increasingly attractive to corporate funders, graduate students, and perhaps departmental faculty as well, will need specific guidance in how to recognize and avoid research conflicts of interest (Fisher, 2009; Pachter et al., 2007). Third, our findings empirically support what is perhaps intuitive about RCR principles; that is, research ethics values of the discipline of psychology are not transmitted to students simply by taking a course in ethics or having experience submitting IRB proposals, but require explicit direction from mentors and clear departmental policies that provide students with the resources to feel prepared to independently conduct research responsibly. At the same time, our data suggest that having an ethically responsible mentor does not by itself instill confidence in the research integrity of the field. Rather students’ observations of how overall departmental faculty and student behaviors reflect RCR values strongly influence the extent to which graduates of these departments believe the discipline of psychology to be a community with the common purpose of promoting responsible science and protecting the rights and welfare of research participants.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grant #1 R01 NS052877-01 from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Footnotes

2Four percent (39 students) indicated they had participated in a previous study conducted by the authors (for instrument refinement and validation purposes) using versions of these instruments. There were no significant differences on any of the RCR measures between those who participated in a previous phase and those who did not.

References

  • American Psychological Association. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist. 2002;57:1060–1073. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • American Psychological Association Center for Psychology Workforce Analysis and Research. 2008 Graduate Study in Psychology. 2008 Retrieved September 25, 2008 from http://research.apa.org/doctoraled16.html.
  • American Psychological Association, Ethics Committee. Report of the Ethics Committee, 2003. American Psychologist. 2004;59(5):434–441. [Google Scholar]
  • American Psychological Association, Ethics Committee. Report of the Ethics Committee, 2004. American Psychologist. 2005;60(5):523–528. [Google Scholar]
  • American Psychological Association, Ethics Committee. Report of the Ethics Committee, 2005. American Psychologist. 2006;61(5):522–529. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • American Psychological Association, Ethics Committee. Report of the Ethics Committee, 2006. American Psychologist. 2007;62(5):504–511. [Google Scholar]
  • American Psychological Association, Ethics Committee. Report of the Ethics Committee, 2007. American Psychologist. 2008;63(5):452–459. [Google Scholar]
  • Anderson MS, Louis KS, Earl J. Disciplinary and departmental effects on observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct. Journal of Higher Education. 1994;65:331–350. [Google Scholar]
  • Arbuckle JL. AMOS Software (Version 5.0) Chicago: SmallWaters; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • Ashforth BE. Climate formation, issues and extensions. Academy of Management Review. 1985;10:837–847. [Google Scholar]
  • Atkinson DR, Casas A, Neville H. Ethnic minority psychologists: Whom they mentor and benefits they derive from the process. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development. 1994;22:37–48. [Google Scholar]
  • Baumrind D. Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s “Behavioral study of obedience.” American Psychologist. 1964;26:887–896. [Google Scholar]
  • Betz NE. Increasing research involvement and interests among graduate students in counseling psychology. Counseling Psychologist. 1997;25:88–93. [Google Scholar]
  • Bieschke KJ, Bishop RM, Garcia VL. The utility of the Research Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment. 1996;4:59–75. [Google Scholar]
  • Bishop RM, Bieschke KJ. Applying social cognitive theory to interest in research among counseling psychology doctoral students: A path analysis. 1998 [Google Scholar]
  • Bogat GA, Redner RL. How mentoring affects the professional development of women in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 1985;16:851–859. [Google Scholar]
  • Brown S, Kalichman MW. Effects of training in the responsible conduct of research: A survey of graduate students in experimental sciences. Science & Engineering Ethics. 1998;4:487–498. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Canter MB, Bennett BE, Jones SE, Nagy TF. Ethics for psychologists: A commentary on the APA ethics code. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • Clark RA, Harden SL, Johnson WB. Mentor relationships in clinical psychology doctoral training: Results of a national survey. Teaching of Psychology. 2000;27:262–268. [Google Scholar]
  • Cohen AG, Gutek BA. Sex differences in the career experiences of members of two APA divisions. American Psychologist. 1991;46:1292–1298. [Google Scholar]
  • Commission on Research Integrity. Integrity and misconduct in research: report of the Commission on Research Integrity. Rockville, Md.: Office of Research Integrity; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • Council of Graduate Schools. The role and nature of the doctoral dissertation: A policy statement. Washington, D.C.: Author; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • Cronan-Hillix T, Gensheimer LK, Cronan-Hillix WA, Davidson WS. Students' views of mentors in psychology graduate training. Teaching of Psychology. 1986;13:123–127. [Google Scholar]
  • Denecke D. The compelling need for a comprehensive approach to scholarly integrity. Communicator. 2008;41:1–3. [Google Scholar]
  • Eisen A, Berry RM. The absent professor: Why we don’t teach research ethics and what to do about it. American Journal of Bioethics. 2002;2:38–49. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Ernhart CB, Scarr S, Geneson DF. On being a whistleblower: The Needleman case. Ethics & Behavior. 1993;3:73–93. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Fisher CB. Decoding the Ethics Code: A Practical Guide for Psychologists. 2nd Edition. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • Fisher CB, Fried AL, Goodman SJ, Kubo-Germano K. Measures of Mentoring, Department Climate, and Graduate Student Preparedness in the Responsible Conduct of Psychological Research. Ethics & Behavior. 2009;19 [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Fisher CB, Wertz FJ, Goodman SJ. Mentoring the responsible conduct of social science research. In: Mertens DM, Ginsberg P, editors. Handbook of Social Research Ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; (in press). [Google Scholar]
  • Fisher CB. Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • Fried LP, Francomano CA, MacDonald SM, Wagner EM, Stokes EJ, Carbone KM, Bias WB, Newman MM, Stobo JD. Career development for women in academic medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1996;276:898–905. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Gelso CJ. On the making of a scientist-practitioner: A theory of research training in professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practices. 1993;24:468–476. [Google Scholar]
  • Gelso CJ, Mallinckrodt B, Judge AB. Research training environment, attitudes toward research, and research self-efficacy: The revised Research Training Environment Scale. Counseling Psychologist. 1996;24:304–322. [Google Scholar]
  • Gilbert IA. Dimensions of same-gender student-faculty role model relationships. Sex Roles. 1985;12:111–123. [Google Scholar]
  • Gilbert LA, Rossman KM. Gender and the mentoring process for women: Implications for professional development. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 1992;23:233–238. [Google Scholar]
  • Hill CE. The effects of my research training environment: Where are my students now? Counseling Psychologist. 1997;25:74–81. [Google Scholar]
  • Hobbs N. The development of a code of ethical standards for psychology. American Psychologist. 1948;3:80–84. [Google Scholar]
  • Hoffer TB, Welch V, Jr, Webber K, Williams K, Lisek B, Hess M, Loew D, Gusman-Barron I. Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2005. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center; 2006. (The report gives the results of data collected in the Survey of Earned Doctorates, conducted for six federal agencies, NSF, NIH, USED, NEH, USDA, and NASA by NORC) [Google Scholar]
  • Hollingsworth MA, Fassinger RE. The role of faculty mentors in the research training of counseling psychology doctoral students. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2002;49:324–330. [Google Scholar]
  • Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6:1–55. [Google Scholar]
  • Johnson WB, Nelson N. Mentor-protégé relationships in graduate training: Some ethical concerns. Ethics & Behavior. 1999;9:189–210. [Google Scholar]
  • Kahn JH. Predicting the scholarly activity of counseling psychology students: A refinement and extension. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2001;48:344–354. [Google Scholar]
  • Kahn JH, Miller SA. Measuring global perceptions of the research training environment using a short form of the RTES-R. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2000;33:103–119. [Google Scholar]
  • Kahn JH, Scott NA. Predictors of research productivity and science-related career goals among counseling psychology doctoral students. The Counseling Psychologist. 1997;25:38–67. [Google Scholar]
  • Kalichman MW. Responding to challenges in educating for the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine. 2007;82:870–875. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Kitchener KS. Psychologists as teacher and mentor: Affirming ethical values throughout the curriculum. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice. 1992;213:190–195. [Google Scholar]
  • Love KM, Bahner AD, Jones LN, Nilsson JE. An investigation of early research experience and research self-efficacy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2007;38:314–320. [Google Scholar]
  • Luebbe AM, Radcliffe AM, Callands TA, Green D, Thorn BE. Evidence-based practice in psychology: Perceptions of graduate students in scientist-practitioner programs. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2007;63:643–655. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Lyon AR, Cotler S. Toward reduced bias and increased utility in the assessment of school refusal behavior: The case for diverse samples and evaluations of context. Psychology in the Schools. 2007;44:551–565. [Google Scholar]
  • Magyar-Moe JL, Pedrotti JT, Edwards LM, Ford AI, Petersen SE, Rasmussen HN, Ryder JA. Perceptions of multicultural training in predoctoral internship programs: A survey of interns and training directors. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2005;36:446–450. [Google Scholar]
  • McGaha AC, Korn JH. The emergence of interest in the ethics of psychological research with humans. Ethics & Behavior. 1995;5:147–159. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Melton GB, Koocher GP, Saks MJ. Children’s competence to consent. New York: Plenum Press; 1983. [Google Scholar]
  • Meyers SA, Reid PT, Quina K. Ready or not, here we come: Preparing psychology graduate students for academic careers. Teaching of Psychology. 1998;25:124–126. [Google Scholar]
  • Milgram S. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1963;7:371–378. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Mintz LB, Bartels KM, Rideout CA. Training in counseling ethnic minorities and race-based availability of graduate school resources. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 1995;26:316–321. [Google Scholar]
  • NAS. Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment that Promotes Responsible Conduct. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2002. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Needleman HM. Reply to Ernhart, Scarr, and Geneson. Ethics & Behavior. 1993;3:95–101. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Nelson ML, Holloway EL. Relation of gender to power and involvement in supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1990;37:473–481. [Google Scholar]
  • Pachter WS, Fox RE, Zimbardo P, Antonuccio DO. Corporate funding and conflicts of interest: A primer for psychologists. American Psychologist. 2007;62:1005–1015. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Pion GM, Mednick MT, Astin HS, Hall CCI, Kenkel MB, Keita GP, Kohout JL, Kelleher JC. The shifting gender composition of psychology: Trends and implications for the discipline. American Psychologist. 1996;51:509–528. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Ponterotto JG, Casas JM, Suzuki LA, Alexander CM, editors. Handbook of multicultural counseling. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on instruction in responsible conduct in research. 2000 Available from: http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/programs/congressionalconcerns.asp.
  • Public Health Service (PHS) Responsible conduct in research education policy suspended. 2001. Available from: http://ori.dhhs.gov/html/programs/congressionalconcerns.asp. [Google Scholar]
  • Rogers-Sirin L. Approaches to multicultural training for professionals: A guide for choosing an appropriate program. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2008;39:313–319. [Google Scholar]
  • Sales B, Folkman S. Ethics in research with human participants. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • Salter AC. Confessions of a whistle-blower: Lessons learned. Ethics & Behavior. 1998;8:115–124. [Google Scholar]
  • Schlosser LZ, Gelso CJ. Measuring the working alliance in advisor-advisee relationships in graduate school. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2001;48:157–167. [Google Scholar]
  • Smith MB. Some perspectives on ethical/political issues in social science research. Personality & Social Psych Bulletin. 1976;2:445–453. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Sprague RL. Whistleblowing: A very unpleasant avocation. Ethics & Behavior. 1993;3:103–134. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Steneck NH. ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. Department of Health and Human Services; 2001. Available from: http://ori.dhhs.gov/publications/ori_intro_text.shtml. [Google Scholar]
  • Steneck NH, Bulger RE. The history, purpose, and future of instruction in the responsible conduct of research. Academic Medicine. 2007;82:829–834. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
  • Stern JE, Elliott D. The ethics of scientific research: A guidebook for course development. Hanover: University Press of New England; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • Sue DW, Sue D. Counseling the culturally diverse. New York: John Wiley; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • Swazey JP, Anderson MS. Mentors, advisors, and role models in graduate and professional education. Washington, D.C.: Association of Academic Health Centers; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • Trimble JE, Fisher CB. The handbook of ethical research with ethnocultural populations and communities. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • Tryon GS. School psychology students’ beliefs about their preparation and concern with ethical issues. Ethics & Behavior. 2002;11:375–394. [Google Scholar]
  • Wilson PF, Johnson WB. Core virtues for the practice of mentoring. Journal of Psychology & Theology. 2001;29:121–130. [Google Scholar]

Full text links 

Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903275283

Read article for free, from open access legal sources, via Unpaywall: https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc3639435?pdf=renderUnpaywall

Citations & impact 

Impact metrics

18
Citations
Jump to Citations

Citations of article over time

Smart citations by scite.ai
Smart citations by scite.ai include citation statements extracted from the full text of the citing article. The number of the statements may be higher than the number of citations provided by EuropePMC if one paper cites another multiple times or lower if scite has not yet processed some of the citing articles.
Explore citation contexts and check if this article has been supported or disputed.
https://scite.ai/reports/10.1080/10508420903275283

Supporting
Mentioning
Contrasting
0
26
0

Article citations

Go to all (18) article citations

Similar Articles 

To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.

Funding 

Funders who supported this work.

NINDS NIH HHS (2)