Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters in Psychology, Graduate Program in Social Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. This created difficulties in accurately identifying the potential costs and benefits of research participation in trauma studies.
INTRODUCTION
RATIONALE
The results of this study may open the doors for future research into evidence-based methods that can help identify the costs and benefits experienced by respondents in trauma research. This study represents a step toward a more empirical approach to trauma research and the ethics involved.
AIMS OF THE STUDY
The Reactions to Research Participation Questionnaire (RRPQ), developed by Newman, Willard, Sinclair, and Kaloupek (2001), is a recently developed empirically based questionnaire that asks participants to self-report the perceived costs and benefits of participating in trauma research. This study will use this measure for the first time within the South African context, to determine whether the factor structure of this questionnaire, found in other studies, is applicable to a culturally diverse South Africa.
STUDY DESIGN
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
STRUCTURE OF THESIS
The methodology section provides the reader with an in-depth description of the research questions addressed by the thesis, the sample selected, the study procedure as well as the instrument used and any ethical issues that may be relevant to the study. The results of the study are then presented in the data analysis section and the implications of these results are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
THE CORE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF RESEARCH
- Autonomy
- Informed Consent
- Confidentiality
- Beneficence and Non-Maleficence
- Minimal Risk
- Equipoise
- Concluding Comments
Informed consent refers to the individual's ability to reflect on given information and then make an informed decision using their autonomous capacity. Equilibrium refers to the need for a balance between the risks and benefits associated with research in order for it to be carried out.
ETHICAL CONCERNS WITHIN TRAUMA RESEARCH
- Autonomy and Decisional Capacity
- Informed Consent and Mandatory Reporting
- Vulnerable Populations
- Minimal Risk
They were provided with informed consent forms requesting their participation in the study. However, to validate these assumptions, more research studies need to be conducted in this critical area.
EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF TRAUMA RESEARCH
Concluding Comments
The review of the literature has thus far provided a broad overview of the current debates surrounding trauma research. The reader should now have a good sense of what ethical concerns there are for trauma research, as well as the ethical dilemmas many trauma researchers face. The need for a more objective approach to evaluating trauma research and the resulting move away from subjective methods of understanding participants' experiences in trauma research should also be understood.
THE REACTIONS TO RESEARCH PARTICIPATION QUESTIONNAIRE (RRPQ)
- Reason for Development
- Process of Development
- Description of Measure
- Administration of RRPQ
- Costs of Research
- Benefits of Research
- Adaptations of the RRPQ
The measure is usually administered last, as it aims to measure the participant's experience of the research process. As can be seen, the final dimensions are still representative of the ethical constructs originally listed. Therefore, participants' own assessment of the costs and benefits of participation favors the ethical principle of beneficence (Newman, Risch & Kassam-Adams, 2006).
So the innovation of the RRPQ provides a way to answer many of the questions we have about trauma.
APPLICATION OF THE RRPQ TO THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT
Based on the empirical evidence obtained from the research in the RRPQ, researchers now have valid arguments for conducting trauma research as it has been shown to be beneficial for the majority of participants. However, to determine whether these findings obtained using US samples apply to our diverse context, it is imperative for South African researchers to evaluate and validate the RRPQ in South African samples. Conducting such research will not only provide an opportunity to assess whether trauma experiences are universally experienced, regardless of context; but we can also use this research to further understand people's experiences of trauma and expand the field of trauma-related research in South Africa as well as in other countries.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
TYPE OF DESIGN
SAMPLE
INSTRUMENTS
The maximum score that can be achieved on the RRPQ is 125 and the minimum score is 23 (Schwerdtfeger, 2009). Global Evaluation is related to trust in confidentiality, scientific quality of the study and respect for and towards the individual. In her study of methodological differences in trauma research using a sample of pregnant women, Schwerdtfeger (2009) reported a.
In the RRPQ-C, Cronbach's alphas were 0.62 in Study 1 and 0.69 in Study 2, indicating respectable internal consistency.
PROCEDURE
Phase 1
At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked if they would be prepared to participate in a similar study in 2 weeks, and respondents who were interested in doing so were asked to provide a unique alphanumeric code (followed by 4 letters of the alphabet). with 2 numbers) which was used to anonymously match phase 1 and phase 2 questionnaires. Questionnaires were completed anonymously (ie, no uniquely identifying information was requested in the questionnaire) away from the lecture room, with respondents given a 24-hour period to submit completed questionnaires to a central collection point. In eight cases, returned questionnaires were considered unusable (due to missing data), giving a final total of 323 usable returns (94.4%).
Respondents who indicated an interest in participating in Phase 2 were informed when and where they should present themselves to obtain a follow-up questionnaire.
Phase 2
ETHICAL ISSUES
This chapter of the thesis contains a description of the data analysis procedures that were used in the study. The results of the study are also presented, including results for the first and second phases of the research study.
DATA ANALYSIS
RESULTS
Phase 1
The first of these factors (α = .892), which corresponds to the participation factor identified by Newman et al., (2001), included items such as “I was treated with respect and dignity by the researchers” and “I understood the information sheet that I received at the start of the study”. However, the perceived disadvantages factor, which assesses cost-risk ratios and allows respondents to report any negative experiences with participation, did not emerge as a factor in the South African sample. The three factors found in the current study indicate that the factor structure found in the Newman, Willard, Sinclair, and Kaloupek (2001) study was not present in the South African sample, as the study's confirmatory factor analysis yielded only three factors. unlike the five originally found in Newman's study.
However, the items corresponding to factors found in the South African sample are similar to three of the central factors found in Newman's study.
Phase 2
The above 3 factors were found to be significant for the South African sample and similar to three of the five factors found by Newman. Based on what I know now, I would participate in the study again if asked. The reader first understands how the four main research questions were answered using the results obtained from the study.
It will then discuss how the research findings compare to previous research findings, as well as how these findings have implications for future research on trauma and the ethical principles underlying it.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This goes against the American cultural tendency to be assertive and open about their feelings in the face of authority. A second aim of the study was to determine whether the RRPQ is a valid and reliable measure of participants' responses to trauma-related research. Identifying the perceived costs and benefits of respondent participation in trauma-related research was the third aim of the study.
Findings from Phase 1 of this research study were found to be consistent with previous studies (see Newman, Risch & Kassam-Adams, 2006; Newman & Kaloupek, 2009; Lergerski & Bunnel, 2010), suggesting that research participation , associated with trauma, well tolerated.
IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS
Autonomy and Decisional Capacity
Previous research has raised concerns that involvement in trauma research places individuals at risk of coercion due to vulnerability and reduced autonomy and decision-making capacity, which reportedly arise from their traumatizing experiences. However, decision-making capacity for informed consent does not appear to be impaired, and there is no evidence to suggest that experience with trauma impairs an individual's ability to give informed consent (Newman & Kaloupek, 2004). Recent research therefore objectively suggests that trauma research does not violate autonomy nor impair decision-making capacity, but contrary to past views (Kilpatric 2004), it actually provides a platform for traumatized individuals to nurture and exercise their basic autonomous rights .
Consequently, it is important that ethics committees and IRBs recognize new research studies that advocate for the conduct of trauma research.
Informed Consent
Based on the available studies, it is clear that trauma participants who are given the opportunity to choose to participate in research studies on their trauma experiences provide consent that is informed and meets the criteria for justified informed consent. and approved, in accordance with ethical principles. . Consequently, trauma research will not appear to exploit the individual's experiences of trauma or take advantage of their vulnerable state as suggested by subjective opinion. Rather, it offers individuals the opportunity to exercise their basic autonomy and allows them to decide in an informed way what will be most beneficial to them.
Beneficence and Non-Maleficence
However, distress during participation does not necessarily equate to regret about participation, as in the current study 69% of respondents reported that they were not distressed and 78% reported that they were not distressed. Two-thirds of respondents (67%) also reported positive risk-benefit ratios regarding their participation and experience of participating in trauma studies. As can be seen from these study results, including the current findings, trauma research does not violate individuals' basic rights to beneficence or non-maleficence.
However, the facts are that participation in trauma research has a positive cost-benefit ratio and is perceived as beneficial by participants.
LIMITATIONS
However, using the RRPQ in a South African sample as a valid empirical tool may change the way in which trauma research is conducted for two reasons. Therefore, the findings based on the RRPQ would appear to have major implications for the field of trauma research, as well as for the ethical paradigm that has so far dominated research on trauma-related topics. Ethics committees and IRBs have, in the past, strictly adhered to ethical assumptions about trauma research for the sake of ensuring the safety of traumatized respondents.
Perceived benefits in trauma research: Exploring methodological and individual difference factors in response to research participation.
