Effective Strategies for Research Integrity Training—a Meta-analysis

Johannes W. Katsarov · Roberto Andorno · André Krom · Mariëtte van den Hoven

75 citations0/0 files storedEducational Psychology Review

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Academic integrity and plagiarism Science Education and Pedagogy Ethics in Business and Education

Abstract

Abstract This article reviews educational efforts to promote a responsible conduct of research (RCR) that were reported in scientific publications between 1990 and early 2020. Unlike previous reviews that were exploratory in nature, this review aimed to test eleven hypotheses on effective training strategies. The achievement of different learning outcomes was analyzed independently using moderator analysis and meta-regression, whereby 75 effect sizes from 30 studies were considered. The analysis shows that the achievement of different learning outcomes ought to be investigated separately. The attainment of knowledge strongly benefited from individualized learning, as well as from the discussion and practical application of ethical standards. Contrarily, not covering ethical standards tended to be a feature of successful courses, when looking at other learning outcomes. Overall, experiential learning approaches where learners were emotionally involved in thinking about how to deal with problems were most effective. Primarily intellectual deliberation about ethical problems, often considered the “gold standard” of ethics education, was significantly less effective. Several findings from previous reviews, e.g., the preferability of mono-disciplinary groups, could not be replicated with multivariate analysis. Several avenues for future research efforts are suggested to advance knowledge on the effectiveness of research integrity training.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 75 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.2013Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs 2015Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings 2004Methods of Meta-Analysis 2008Chapter 9: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses 1993Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation.

Cited by

2023Does Professional Development Effectively Support the Implementation of Inclusive Education? A Meta-Analysis 2022Fostering a research integrity culture: Actionable advice for institutions 2023VIRT 2 UE: A European train-the-trainer programme for teaching research integrity 2023A Taxonomy for Research Integrity Training: Design, Conduct, and Improvements in Research Integrity Courses

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.