ArticleAccountability in research2016
Making Professional Decisions in Research: Measurement and Key Predictors.
Article in Accountability in research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of a Novel Responsible Conduct of Research Training Program and Learning Transfer Intervention on Ethical and Professional Decision-Making Skills.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Trial
- Leadership, management, and team practices in research labs: Development and validation of two new measures.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- Seeking help as a strategy for ethical and professional decision-making in research: Perspectives of researchers from East Asia and the United States.Accountability in research · 2025Article
- Principal Investigators' Priorities and Perceived Barriers and Facilitators When Making Decisions About Conducting Essential Research in the COVID-19 Pandemic.Science and engineering ethics · 2023Article
- Assessing the climate for research ethics in labs: Development and validation of a brief measure.Accountability in research · 2022Article
- Assessing clinical research coordinator knowledge of good clinical practice: An evaluation of the state of the art and a test validation study.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
- How do clinical research coordinators learn Good Clinical Practice? A mixed-methods study of factors that predict uptake of knowledge.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2020Article
- Professional decision-making in medicine: Development of a new measure and preliminary evidence of validity.PloS one · 2020Article
- What Explains Associations of Researchers' Nation of Origin and Scores on a Measure of Professional Decision-Making? Exploring Key Variables and Interpretation of Scores.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Article
- The Role of Culture and Acculturation in Researchers' Perceptions of Rules in Science.Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
- The Professionalism and Integrity in Research Program: Description and Preliminary Outcomes.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2018Article
- Five Dimensions of Research Ethics: A Stakeholder Framework for Creating a Climate of Research Integrity.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The professional decision-making in research (PDR) measure was administered to 400 National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded and industry-funded investigators, along with measures of cynicism, moral disengagement, compliance disengagement, impulsivity, work stressors, knowledge of responsible conduct of research (RCR), and socially desirable response tendencies. Negative associations were found for the PDR and measures of cynicism, moral disengagement, and compliance disengagement, while positive associations were found for the PDR and RCR knowledge and positive urgency, an impulsivity subscale. PDR scores were not related to socially desirable responding, or to measures of work stressors and the remaining impulsivity subscales. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, lower moral disengagement scores, higher RCR knowledge, and identifying the United States as one's nation of origin emerged as key predictors of stronger performance on the PDR. The implications of these findings for understanding the measurement of decision-making in research and future directions for research and RCR education are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.