Research Integrity Policies: An Evaluation of Accessibility

1
Research Integrity PoliciesAn Evaluation of
Accessibility Usefulness

• Rebecca Ann Lind, Ginnifer L. Mastarone, Nathan
  Earixson, Korin Isotalo Hunt, Jill Caravelli,
  Sarah E. Millermaier, Brenda Russell 2009
  Research Conference on Research Integrity

University of Illinois at Chicago
2
Acknowledgment

• The project described was supported by Grant
  Number R01NR009967 from the National Institute of
  Nursing Research and the Office of Research
  Integrity (Department of Health and Human
  Services) Lind, PI.
• The content is solely the responsibility of the
  authors and does not necessarily represent the
  official views of the National Institute of
  Nursing Research, the National Institutes of
  Health, or the Office of Research Integrity.
• No Conflicts of Interest to disclose

3
Topics

• Intro Research Questions
• Method
• Results
• Discussion/QA

4
Intro research questions

• Larry Rhoades (2003) minimal vs. useful
• Research Questions
• (1) How accessible are universities research
  integrity policies?
• (2) How useful are universities research
  integrity policies?
• Key Resource CHPS Consulting (2000)

5
Method (1/2)

• Random Sample
• 100 NIH-funded institutions
• 100 NSF-funded institutions
• 165 Policies obtained
• 84 NIH (11 no policy 5 unable to determine)
• 81 NSF (17 no policy 2 unable to determine)

6
Method (2/2)

• Content analysis
• System based on Lind (2005), CHPS (2000)
• 650 variables, most present/absent
• 21 topic areas 5 dimensions
• 93 intercoder reliability
• Data Analysis
• Calculation of scores across topic areas
• Frequency analysis

7
Accessibility from home page

• Mean 3.81
• SD 0.94
• Level of difficulty
• Easy (2-3) n48
• Medium (4) n66
• Hard (5) n21
• (30 policies not accessible for coding not
  posted, intranet only, links broken, etc.)

8
Usefulness of policies

• Five main dimensions
• Setting the Stage
• Ensuring Fairness
• Respondent Complainant
• Inquiry Investigation
• Outcomes

9
Setting the stage (M0.48/ SD0.17)

• Definition of RM (0.65/0.20)
• Reporting of Allegations (0.49/0.19)
• Pursuing the Allegation (0.32/0.22)
• Interim Admin. Action (0.65/0.46)
• Mentoring (0.15/0.27)
• Time Considerations (0.65/0.30)

10
2. Ensuring fairness (0.53/ 0.24)

• Maintaining Confidentiality (0.54/0.23)
• Conflicts of Interest (0.45/0.25)
• Appropriate Expertise (0.61/0.43)

11
3. Respondent-complainant (0.76/ 0.23)

• Rights of Respondent (0.89/0.19)
• Restoration of Respondents Reputation
  (0.58/0.38)
• Complainant Rights Protection (0.81/0.25)

12
4. Inquiry investigation process (0.73/0.16)

• Appointing the Inq/Inv Committees (0.86/0.20)
  (0.77/0.27)
• Conducting the Inq/Inv (0.80/0.20) (0.84/0.21)
• Inq/Inv Report Content (0.92/0.28) (0.97/0.17)

13
5. Outcomes (0.50/0.22)

• Decision Makers Process (0.40/0.31)
• Sanctions (0.77/0.24)
• Appeals (0.32/0.38)

14
Policies earning high scores

• 5 Dimensions
• 1. Setting the Stage (high mean, 0.48)
• 2. Ensuring Fairness (0.53)
• 3. Respondent Complainant (0.76)
• 4. Inquiry Investigation (0.73)
• 5. Outcomes (0.50)

15
Discussion Accessibility

• Policies fairly accessible
• 140 posted on Internet (70.0 of total sample
  84.8 of obtained policies)
• Average of 3-4 clicks from home page
• Not always easy to find!
• Unable to obtain 35 policies
• 28 no policy 7 unable to determine (17.5 of
  total sample)

16
Discussion Usefulness

• Policy usefulness varies widely
• Across institutions
• Across topic areas
• Relative strengths respondent rights, appointing
  committees, conducting inq/inv, committee
  reports, complainant rights protection
• Relative weaknesses mentoring, appeals, pursuing
  allegation, COI

17
Discussion Future research

• Continued analysis of this dataset
• Researchers knowledge, understanding, evaluation
  of RM policies
• Relationship between policies and researchers
  understanding of RM and processes
• RM sensitivity (RCR Sensitivity)
• Relationship between policies and efficacy of RM
  processes
• Institutional processes related to
  adopting/adapting ORIs sample policy
• Expanding to other RCR domains

18
For more information

• rebecca_at_uic.edu
• 312-996-3533

19
Excerpt RM policy codesheet