Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28150177›Full record

SynthesisScience and engineering ethics2017

A Meta-analytic Comparison of Face-to-Face and Online Delivery in Ethics Instruction: The Case for a Hybrid Approach.

E Michelle Todd, Logan L Watts, Tyler J Mulhearn, Brett S Torrence, Megan R Turner, Shane Connelly, Michael D Mumford

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Science and engineering ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Educating PhD Students in Research Integrity in Europe.Science and engineering ethics · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

E Michelle ToddDepartment of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 73019, USA.
Logan L WattsDepartment of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 73019, USA.
Tyler J MulhearnDepartment of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 73019, USA.
Brett S TorrenceDepartment of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 73019, USA.
Megan R TurnerDepartment of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 73019, USA.
Shane ConnellyDepartment of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 73019, USA.
Michael D MumfordDepartment of Psychology, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 73019, USA. mmumford@ou.edu.

Funding

Office of Research Integrity ORIIR140010-01-00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the growing body of literature on training in the responsible conduct of research, few studies have examined the effectiveness of delivery formats used in ethics courses (i.e., face-to-face, online, hybrid). The present effort sought to address this gap in the literature through a meta-analytic review of 66 empirical studies, representing 106 ethics courses and 10,069 participants. The frequency and effectiveness of 67 instructional and process-based content areas were also assessed for each delivery format. Process-based contents were best delivered face-to-face, whereas contents delivered online were most effective when restricted to compliance-based instructional contents. Overall, hybrid courses were found to be most effective, suggesting that ethics courses are best delivered using a blend of formats and content areas. Implications and recommendations for future development of ethics education courses in the sciences are discussed.

Indexed as

InternetLearningTeachingEthics, ResearchFaceHumansBlended learningDelivery formatEthicsEthics educationFace-to-faceHybridOnlineResponsible conduct of research (RCR)Training

Identifiers

PMID28150177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.