Nursing Faculties’ Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Research Ethics According to Demographic Characteristics and Institutional Environment in Korea

Abstract

This study, conducted in the Republic of Korea, analyzed nursing faculty members’ knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics according to their characteristics and the institutional environment. A survey was conducted from April 24 to July 23, 2017. The participants were 210 nursing professors from 57 universities in Korea. The survey questionnaire gathered information on participants’ characteristics, their knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics, and their perceived training needs. A relatively low difficulty index was found for knowledge items dealing with conflicts of interest (0.66), copyright (0.65), and plagiarism and duplicate publications (0.17) than for the other six items. Of the 12 items assessing attitudes toward research ethics, use of a plagiarism-checking program and reviewing manuscripts from members of one’s own research group had the lowest scores. The knowledge level of participants whose institutions provided a plagiarism-checking program was higher than those whose institutions did not. Former group also showed better attitudes toward research ethics. High-priority training needs were obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval, writing informed consent forms, and obtaining informed consent for studies on children and pregnant women. A more intensive training program for nursing faculty is required on specific topics, including conflicts of interest, copyright, plagiarism, duplicate publications, IRB approval, and informed consent. Furthermore, all nursing institutions in Korea should provide a plagiarism-checking program to faculty members.

Keywords

plagiarism nursing faculty research ethics publishing attitude Republic of Korea

Introduction

Background

Nursing research usually involves human subjects, such as patients, nurses, nursing students, or community members. Therefore, research ethics in nursing studies is of vital importance to avoid causing harm or violating participants’ privacy. In January 2018, the third version of “Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing” was announced by the Committee on Publication Ethics, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, and the World Association of Medical Editors. There should be a description of best practices on the journal’s website to prevent research and publication misconduct, including not only a process for the identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct but also policies on publication ethics (DOAJ, 2019). Furthermore, as a result of the introduction of the internet and other information technology applications, it has become easy to conduct full-text searches of a variety of literature databases, which has facilitated the detection of research and publication misconduct. Therefore, both journal editors and researchers should understand and implement these principles related to research and publication ethics.

Definition of Terminology

In this study, the term “research ethics” is used to refer to the ethical issues that are raised when research subjects are human, as animal research is relatively uncommon in the field of nursing. The scope of research ethics includes research integrity, authorship distribution, fairness of laboratory culture, ethics in clinical studies and animal studies, and scientists’ social responsibility. Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. More specifically, according to an influential definition,

(a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them. (b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. (c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. (d) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion (U.S. Department of Health and Human Service Office of Research Integrity, 2019).

The term “publication ethics” has been defined as follows: “Publication ethics are rules of conduct generally agreed upon when publishing results of scientific research or other scholarly work. Generally it is a standard that protects intellectual property and forbids the re-publication of another’s work without proper credit” (Psychology Dictionary, 2009). Research ethics can generally be divided into research integrity and publication ethics (Uhm, 2016). Although the concept of publication ethics has a particular focus on duplicate publications, it can be included within a broad understanding of research ethics. Therefore, in this article, the concept of research ethics is understood as including publication ethics.

Literature Review

Several studies have been conducted in Korea to help nursing faculty members obtain a better understanding of those topics and to promote optimal behavior. A tutor training course for team-based learning on research ethics was administered as a 1-day, 8-hr-long course for medical school faculty. The topics were as follows: research ethics in animal experiments, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publications, authorship misconduct, ethical consideration, and the institutional review board (IRB). There were positive responses to the workshop (Ju, 2009). A bioethical approach for nursing research focused on the role of research ethics committees (IRBs) was suggested based on the Bioethics and Safety Law in Korea (Jeong, 2015). The topics in research ethics that nursing researchers found difficult to understand included conflicts of interest and plagiarism for professors and falsification and fabrication for graduate students (Jeong et al., 2010). During the Good Research Practice program, the concepts of professional nursing ethics, moral issues, and bioethics were often confused with one another and not clearly defined (Cho & Shin, 2014). Nursing faculty members generally understood the seriousness of various bioethical issues and considered abortion to be the most serious such issue (Choe et al., 2013).

Several related studies have also been conducted outside of Korea. In a cross-sectional survey involving 368 medical health faculty members in Egypt on attitudes toward research ethics committees, more than half of the participants reported that they had not received prior training; however, most of them suggested adding the topic of research ethics to postgraduate coursework (Kandeel et al., 2011). Survey results from 125 dental faculty members in Saudi Arabia and Egypt found that prior ethics training was a strong predictor for participants stating that they were familiar with research ethics principles and the functions of research ethics committees; furthermore, prior research experience was a strong predictor for agreeing that vulnerable groups could provide informed consent (El-Dessouky et al., 2011).

In a study conducted in Israel, PhD nurses showed a greater inclination to actually select, omit, or even fabricate data than MA nurses, which may have been related to pressure to publish (Asman et al., 2019). In another study, teaching on nurses’ codes of conduct was rather extensive and highlighted the nurse–patient relationship. Educators assessed their teaching as statistically significantly more extensive than students perceived it as being (Numminen et al., 2011). Among health sciences faculty at two major Jordanian universities, most faculty members reported having no training in research ethics at their current institutions. Although knowledge of research ethics committees’ roles and functions was adequate, deficiencies were found regarding the advisory and monitoring roles of research ethics committees. Faculty members expressed concerns about the level of ethical training received by members of research ethics committees and potential conflicts of interest and bias in the review process (Ayou et al., 2019). A high proportion of nurses in Nepal did not understand the core principles of clinical practice, including the Hippocratic Oath, Nuremberg Code, and Helsinki Declaration (Adhikari et al., 2016). In South Africa, out of 967 researchers surveyed, 12% of the respondents did not know the authorship criteria for publication; furthermore, 48% stated that it was not easy to apply the criteria (Breet et al., 2018). Among 278 researchers in Egypt, Lebanon, and Bahrain, the majority had committed at least one form of research misconduct (59.4%). The frequent types of misconduct were circumventing research ethics regulations, and fabrication and falsification (Felaefel et al., 2018). However, no study has yet specifically investigated knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics among nursing faculty members in Korea. Information on these issues will help provide a basis for faculty training on research ethics.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to investigate knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics among nursing faculty members in the Republic of Korea. Specifically, the following topics were investigated: first, participants’ knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics according to their characteristics; second, differences in knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics according to the institutional research environment; third, correlations between knowledge and attitudes; and fourth, perceived needs for education on research ethics. The results of this study will provide a basis for determining the major topics in a training program on research ethics for nursing faculty members. By doing so, this study will contribute to the prevention of ethical misconduct in research by nursing faculty members in Korea; furthermore, the scales used in this survey will serve as useful tools for measuring knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics.

Hypotheses

The following were the null hypotheses of this study: First, there would be no difference in nursing faculty members’ knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics according to their characteristics; second, there would be no difference in nursing faculty members’ knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics according to the institutional research environment; and third, there would be no correlations between nursing faculty members’ knowledge of research ethics and their attitudes.

Method

Study Design

This was a cross-sectional descriptive study based on a survey questionnaire. The text was described according to the reporting guidelines presented in the STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) statement (Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, 2019).

Setting

Written survey questionnaires were dispatched via surface mail to 210 nursing faculty members at 57 nursing schools out of total 203 nursing schools in Korea, and responses were collected from April 23 to July 23, 2017. There was a convenient sample selection. There were 203 nursing colleges in Korea, which can be confirmed from the home page of the Korean Nurses Association (http://www.koreanurse.or.kr/resources/nurse_edu.php). There were 16 local Governments in Korea. All 203 nursing colleges were allocated in each local Government. Out of 203, only 67 colleges were arbitrarily selected as the following procedure.

In six local Government regions where more than or equal to 15 colleges were present, five colleges were chosen from each region; therefore, the number of colleges was 30. In seven local Government areas where 10 to 14 colleges were present, four colleges were selected from each region; therefore, the number of colleges was 28. In three local Government regions where less than or equal to nine colleges were present, three colleges were selected from each area; therefore, the number of colleges was nine. The number of chosen colleges was 67 from a total 203. The authors contacted chairs of 67 colleges via telephone or email to get the approval of this survey. Out of 67, 57 chairs agreed and allowed authors to survey their faculties. After that, the authors explained the purpose and methods of this survey to each faculty of 57 nursing colleges through email or telephone. If faculty members agree with the survey, the questionnaire sheet and informed consent form were dispatched via surface mail or email. Two to six faculties in each college responded. The total number of participants was 210. Out of 210, 200 faculties provided the answers and informed consent form.

The survey consisted of seven items dealing with participants’ general characteristics, two items on the institutional environment, nine items on knowledge of research ethics, 12 items on attitudes toward research ethics, and 14 items on perceived needs for research ethics education (Supplement 1). For knowledge of research ethics, the item type was single-best-choice questions with five options. If the score is higher, it means better knowledge. The items on attitudes toward research ethics were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The higher score means better attitudes. There were three reverse items. The items on perceived needs were also scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The higher score means more needs.

Validity and Reliability of the Acceptability Questionnaire

For content validity, all items were first described after the co-authors discussed them with a specialist on research ethics who has worked in this field for more than 20 years. All content of the survey questionnaire was related to research ethics (Supplement 1). Pilot study was done from 10 nursing faculties for validity of the questionnaires. The reliability of the measurement tools (attitudes toward research ethics) was tested with Cronbach’s alpha. The Cronbach’s alpha value was calculated as .712 for the 12 items on attitudes.

Item Analysis and Goodness-of-Fit Test of Knowledge Level

Item analysis, including difficulty index and item-total correlation based on classical test theory, was done with jMetrik, Version 4.41 (Psychomeasurement Systems, Charlottesville, VA, USA). Difficulty index of each item based on classical test theory was calculated as follows:

Item-total correlation was calculated as the Pearson correlation between each item’s score and the other items’ total scores omitting that item. It means each item’s contribution to the total score. It is one of the reliability tests of the measurement tool. For the goodness-of-fit test of nine items of knowledge level, Winsteps (Version 4.4.5; https://winsteps.com) was used, which is based on the Rasch model.

Participants

The research population is the nursing faculties of 203 nursing colleges in Korea. Of the 210 faculty members from 57 nursing schools in Korea, 200 (95.2%) were included as subjects who agreed to participate, provided written informed consent, and returned the response form. All nursing faculty members from the 57 schools were eligible to be included. Selection criteria are nursing faculties who were working in the nursing schools and had published at least one research article, including journal paper or PhD thesis.

Variables

The variables included all of the surveyed characteristics of the participants. The outcomes were participants’ knowledge of, attitudes toward, and perceived needs for education on research ethics. There were no noteworthy confounding factors.

Data Sources

The data source was the responses of the 200 participants. Responses were coded in a spreadsheet file as numerical values. For analyses, the codes were converted to binary or Likert-type-scale values.

Bias

There was no potential source of bias in the questionnaire results.

Study Size/Sample Estimation

The sample size was estimated using G*Power 3.10 (Faul et al., 2007). With a significance level of .05, a testing power of .90, and an effect size for the correlational analysis of .30, the minimum sample size was 109; therefore, this study fulfilled the sample size needed for a comparative and correlational analysis.

Quantitative Variables

All variables in this study were quantitative. They were treated as binary or numerical values for statistical testing.

Statistical Methods

Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. The correlations between the difficulty index (score) of items on knowledge and other characteristics of the respondents were analyzed. Differences in knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics according to participants’ characteristics were analyzed by the t test and the analysis of variance with the Scheffé test verification. Differences in knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics according to the institutional research environment were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test because a parametric test was not possible due to the non-normal distribution of the sample. The correlation between nursing faculty members’ overall knowledge of research ethics and their attitudes toward research ethics was also tested. SPSS (Version 21; IBM®, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for the comparative and correlational analysis. Missing data were treated as missing in the statistical analysis.

Results

Participants

The number of invited participants was 210 faculty members, of whom 200 agreed to participate and returned responses to the survey questionnaire (95.2%). We could not determine the reasons for non-participation.

Item Analysis and Goodness-of-Fit Test for Knowledge-Level Test Items

The range of difficulty index was from 0.17 to 0.98. The range of item-total correlations was from .08 to .42. The distribution of the two indexes was presented in Figure 1. All items’ infit-mean squares were over 0.5, and the outfit-mean square was less than 2.0 (Supplement 2).

Figure 1.

The distribution of difficulty index and item-total correlation showed that the range of difficulty index was from 0.17 to 0.98 and the range of item-total correlations was from .08 to .42.

Descriptive Data

The characteristics of the study participants are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 200).

Characteristics	Category	n (%)
Age (years)	30–39	33 (16.0)
	40–49	109 (54.5)
	50–59	46 (23.0)
	60–65	12 (6.5)
Gender	Woman	196 (98.0)
	Man	4 (2.0)
Job title	Professor	43 (21.5)
	Associate professor	35 (17.5)
	Assistant professor	114 (57.0)
	Lecturer	8 (4.0)
Terminal educational degree	PhD	179 (89.5)
	Master of Science	11 (5.5)
	Other	10 (5.0)
Research career (years) (n = 191)	<10	77 (40.3)
Research career (years) (n = 191)	10–19	68 (35.6)
	20–29	33 (17.3)
	30 and above	13 (6.8)
Role in an academic society (n = 182)^a	Editorial board	38 (20.9)
Role in an academic society (n = 182)^a	Reviewer	69 (37.9)
	Member	70 (38.5)
	Other	5 (2.7)
	No	18 (9.0)
Obtained a certificate for completing a research ethics course (n = 198)	Yes	172 (86.9)
	No	26 (13.1)

In the case of multiple roles, the higher roles are indicated first.

Institutional Environment of Research Ethics

Of the 200 participants, 108 (54.0%) stated that at least one training course on research and publication ethics was held annually, 68 (34.0%) stated that this was not the case, and 24 (12.0%) did not know whether such a course was held. For the comparative analysis, the responses of the 24 participants (12.0%) who did not know were treated as “no” responses. The institutions of 116 participants (58.0%) provided a plagiarism-checking program to faculty members, while 83 participants (41.5%) stated that their institution did not provide them with a plagiarism-checking program. One participant did not respond to this item.

Participants’ Knowledge of Research Ethics

Findings on this topic are presented in Table 2. Participants received relatively low scores for the items on the difference between plagiarism and duplicate publications (17.0%), conflicts of interest (66.0%), and copyright (64.5%).

Table 2.

Participants’ Knowledge of Research Ethics (N = 200).

Content of items	Correct answern (%)
1. Approval from the institutional review board	184 (92.0)
2. Clinical trial registration	167 (83.5)
3. Informed consent	196 (98.0)
4. Conflicts of interest	132 (66.0)
5. Copyright	129 (64.5)
6. Difference between plagiarism and duplicate publications	34 (17.0)
7. Authorship	186 (93.0)
8. Duplicate publications	181 (90.5)
9. Oversight of ethical misconduct (plagiarism)	166 (83.0)
Average	152.8 (76.4)

Participants’ Attitudes Toward Research Ethics

Participants’ attitudes are presented in Table 3. Participants provided relatively low scores for the following three items: “I always decline review invitations if the manuscript for review is from a member of the same research group” (4.05/5); “I always use a plagiarism-checking program when writing an article or evaluating students’ homework” (4.03/5); and “I do not cite others’ articles in English in the text and references section, even though I cite their articles in Korean” (4.10/5).

Table 3.

Participants’ Attitudes Toward Research Ethics (N = 200).

Content of items	M (maximum: 5)	SD
1. I always request IRB approval for all research on human subjects.	4.80	0.58
2. I always obtain permission for use from the publisher or author when I use tables or figures in my article if those tables or figures were not published in OA journals or in OA articles.	4.24	1.10
3. I always obtain permission for use from the author when I use research tools of other researchers.	4.67	0.74
4. The order of the list of co-authors is always determined according to their contributions, with agreement among co-authors.	4.52	0.76
5. I have added someone as a co-author to one of my research articles even though his or her contribution was insufficient.^a	4.78	0.68
6. I always decline review invitations if the manuscript for review is from a member of the same research group.	4.05	1.21
7. I conceal subjects’ private information during the research conduct and analysis so that the reviewers or readers cannot identify the subjects.	4.66	0.62
8. Before conducting human subject research, I always receive written or audio-recorded informed consent.	4.79	0.54
9. I always obtain informed consent from both the subject and his or her parent or guardian if the subject is 18 years old or younger.	4.61	0.80
10. I do not cite others’ articles in English in the text and references section, even though I cite their articles in Korean.^a	4.10	1.18
11. I always use a plagiarism-checking program when writing an article or evaluating students’ homework.	4.03	1.11
12. I have removed outliers during the statistical analysis of data without mentioning it in the manuscript.^a	4.20	1.03
Total	4.45	0.44

Note. IRB = institutional review board; OA = open access.

Reverse items.

Correlation Between Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Research Ethics

The correlation between participants’ overall knowledge of research ethics and their overall attitudes was .246 (p < .001).

Comparison of Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Research Ethics According to Subjects’ General Characteristics

In terms of knowledge of research ethics according to demographic characteristics, participants with a higher ranking position (professors and associate professors) showed higher scores for knowledge than lecturers (p = .010). There was no difference in knowledge level between men and women (p = .998). PhD holders showed higher scores than master’s degree holders (p = .048). Participants with experience as an editorial board member, reviewer, or society member showed higher scores than those who had held other positions in academic societies (p = .001). Participants who had obtained a certificate for completing research ethics course showed higher scores than those who had not done so (p = .001).

Turning to attitudes, professors, and associate professors and assistant professors showed higher scores for attitudes toward research ethics than lecturers (p = .001). Women showed higher scores for attitudes than men (p = .041). PhD holders showed higher scores than master’s degree holders (p = .024). Participants with a research career of 20 to 29 years showed better attitudes than those with a research career of less than 10 years (p = .028). Participants with experience as reviewers showed higher scores than those who had only been society members (p = .007). Finally, participants who had obtained a certificate for completing a research ethics course showed higher scores than those who had not done so (p = .031; Table 4).

Table 4.

Comparison of Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Research Ethics According to Subjects’ General Characteristics.

Characteristics	Category	n (%)	Knowledge	F/t/Z (p)	Attitude	F/t/Z (p)
Characteristics	Category	n (%)	M (SD)	F/t/Z (p)	M (SD)	F/t/Z (p)
Age (years)	30~39	33 (16.0)	7.12 (1.56)	0.01(.997)	52.56 (0.99)	1.73(.162)
	40~49	109 (54.5)	7.13 (1.49)		53.45 (5.26)
	50~59	46 (23.0)	7.15 (1.36)		53.32 (5.55)
	60~65	12 (6.5)	7.23 (1.36)		56.46 (2.40)
Gender	Woman	196 (98.0)	7.14 (1.47)	0.99* (.998)	53.77 (5.29)	2.03* (.041)
Gender	Man	4 (2.0)	7.00 (0.81)	0.99* (.998)	49.00 (2.58)	2.03* (.041)
Job title	Professor^a	43 (21.5)	7.46 (1.20)	3.90** (.010)a, b > d	55.69 (5.08)	7.99** (<.001)a > c; a, b, c > d
	Associate professor^b	35 (17.5)	7.28 (1.75)		54.51 (4.06)
	Assistant professor^c	114 (57.0)	7.08 (1.35)		52.75 (5.15)
	Lecturer^d	8 (4.0)	5.62 (1.99)		47.37 (6.63)
Terminal educational degree	PhD^a	179 (89.5)	7.20 (1.39)	3.09** (.048)a > b	53.71 (5.26)	3.79** (.024)a > b
	Master of Science^b	11 (5.5)	6.09 (2.16)		49.27 (4.81)
	Other^c	10 (5.0)	7.20 (1.39)		53.90 (4.55)
Research career (years) (n = 191)	<10^a	77 (40.3)	7.01 (1.35)	0.76(.516)	52.31 (5.44)	3.10** (.028)c > a
	10–19^b	68 (35.6)	7.17 (1.62)		53.76 (5.29)
	20–29^c	33 (17.3)	7.45 (1.20)		55.36 (4.75)
	30 and above^d	13 (6.8)	7.30 (1.60)		54.84 (3.95)
Role in academic society (n = 182)*	Editorial board^a	38 (20.9)	7.42 (1.28)	13.16** (<.001)a, b, c, e > d	54.39 (4.61)	3.64** (.007)b > c
	Reviewer^b	69 (37.9)	7.37 (1.28)		54.71 (4.43)
	Members^c	70 (38.5)	6.94 (1.31)		51.67 (6.02)
	Other^d	5 (2.7)	3.20 (1.92)		52.00 (2.73)
	No^e	18 (9.0)	7.55 (1.24)		54.27 (5.52)
Obtained a certificate for completing a research ethics course	Yes	172 (86.9)	7.27 (1.40)	3.47(.001)	53.84 (4.95)	2.25(.031)
	No	26 (13.1)	6.23 (1.55)	3.47(.001)	50.76 (6.66)	2.25(.031)

The Mann–Whitney U test. ** The Scheffé test.

Comparison of Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Research Ethics According to Institutional Environment

Knowledge of research ethics was not significantly different between participants whose institutions provided a training course on research and publication ethics and those whose institutions did not (p = .125; Figure 2). However, participants whose institutes provided a training course showed better attitudes than their counterparts (p = .005; Figure 3). The knowledge level of participants whose institutions provided a plagiarism-checking program was higher than those whose institutions did not (p < .001; Figure 4). Furthermore, the former group showed better attitudes than the latter group (p < .001; Figure 5).

Figure 2.

Difference of knowledge level of research ethics between participants whose institutions provided a training course on research ethics (1) and those whose institutions did not (2).

Figure 3.

Difference of attitudes toward research ethics between participants whose institutions provided a training course on research ethics (1) and those whose institutions did not (2).

Figure 4.

Difference of knowledge level of research ethics between participants whose institutions provided a plagiarism-checking program (1) and those whose institutions did not (2).

Figure 5.

Difference of attitudes toward research ethics between participants whose institutions provided a plagiarism-checking program (1) and those whose institutions did not (2).

Participants’ Perceived Needs for Research Ethics Education

These findings are presented in Table 5. All items were considered to be needed by participants, as shown by scores of at least 4.38/5. The following three items showed particularly high scores: “How to obtain informed consent from children, adolescents, and pregnant women” (4.72/5); “How to write an informed consent form” (4.70/5); and “How to obtain approval from the institutional review board” (4.68/5).

Table 5.

Perceived Needs for Research Ethics Education (N = 200).

Items	M	SD
1. Declaration of Helsinki	4.51	0.64
2. Clinical trial registration method	4.38	0.69
3. How to obtain approval from the institutional review board	4.68	0.55
4. How to write an informed consent form	4.70	0.51
5. How to obtain informed consent from children, adolescents, and pregnant women	4.72	0.46
6. How to treat personal photos or information anonymously	4.66	0.55
7. Examples of conflicts of interest	4.47	0.60
8. Examples of authorship disputes	4.47	0.61
9. Classification of duplicate publications and resolution method	4.63	0.53
10. How to use a plagiarism-checking program	4.43	0.64
11. The difference between plagiarism and duplicate publications	4.57	0.58
12. Definitions of data fabrication and falsification	4.55	0.60
13. Learning materials and casebook for education on research ethics	4.43	0.62
14. Guidelines for handling research and publication misconduct	4.50	0.62
Total	4.55	0.39

Discussion

Key Results

Nursing faculty members’ knowledge of research ethics varied across the items. Conflicts of interest, copyright, and the difference between plagiarism and duplicate publications were difficult items for respondents. In particular, the difference between plagiarism and duplicate publications was challenging, with a difficulty index of 0.17 (Table 2). Turning to attitudes toward research ethics, the items relating to use of a plagiarism-checking program and reviewing manuscripts by researchers in the same research group showed relatively low values of 4.05 and 4.03, respectively (with a maximum value of 5.0; Table 3). The correlation between knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics was low, at .246 (p < .001). Participants with higher ranking positions, higher academic degrees, and with experience of obtaining IRB approval showed better knowledge and attitudes (Table 4). As components of the institutional environment, having an ethics training course and the availability of a plagiarism-checking program had a positive influence on participants’ attitudes; furthermore, having access to an ethics training course had a positive influence on participants’ attitudes toward research ethics (Figures 1 –4). Obtaining IRB approval, writing informed consent forms, and obtaining informed consent for studies on children and pregnant women were identified as high-priority needs (Table 5).

Links of the Results to Previous Studies

In the study of Jeong et al. (2010), the knowledge score for research ethics (plagiarism, informed consent, duplicate publications, IRB, privacy and confidentiality, authorship, conflicts of interest, and research ethics guidelines) was 75.4 out of a maximum of 100 among nursing faculty members. Research ethics guidelines, conflicts of interest, and authorship showed lower scores than other items. In the present study, conflicts of interest, copyright, and plagiarism/duplicate publications were difficult items. Conflicts of interest have been found to be a difficult item in two studies. In the study of Jeong et al. (2010), the major educational needs were conflicts of interest and plagiarism, unlike the present survey results, where IRB approval and informed consent were identified as high-priority areas. Although it is not possible to compare knowledge levels assessed using different items between two studies, some items measuring knowledge of concepts related to research ethics were still difficult for nursing faculty members.

Item Analysis and Goodness-of-Fit Test

The distribution of the difficulty index and item-total correlation of each item showed that No. 6 item’s difficulty index was very low (.17). It means that this item is too difficult for examinees. Values of No. 1 and No. 5 items’ item-total correlations were lower than .1: .081 and .018. It means that those two items contributed a little to the total score (Figure 1). “For the interpretation of the result of the goodness-of-fit test, infit means the inlier-sensitive. It occurs not only when the examinees’ responses are too suitable for the estimated response pattern but also their responses are least suitable for alternative evaluation tools. Outfit means outlier-sensitive. It occurred when the examinees’ responses were far from expected ones. Outfit mean square value over 2.0 may distort measurement system (tool), whereas infit mean square value less than 0.5 may produce too higher reliability of the measurement system (Linacre, 2002). Therefore, the above results showed that there was neither an inlier nor an outlier. Results of item analysis and the goodness-of-fit test showed characteristics of nine test items that can be used for the knowledge level of research ethics.

Interpretation

From the above results, the following inferences can be drawn. Conflicts of interest, copyright, and the definition of plagiarism and duplicate publications were particularly difficult topics for nursing faculty members, and they wanted to know more about how to apply for IRB approval and how to write informed consent forms. Some institutions were reported not to provide a plagiarism-checking program. Nursing faculty members who served as editorial board members of a journal or reviewed others’ manuscripts had the opportunity to understand research ethics more deeply and to practice their proficiency in applying the relevant skills.

Contribution to New Knowledge in the Field

This study presents heretofore rare data on the knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics among nursing faculty members in Korea. By doing so, it provides a basis for a faculty training program to promote research ethics—both in terms of conceptual understanding and behaviors—by identifying gaps in knowledge. Most faculty members of the target schools participated in the survey. The items assessing knowledge can be used in future studies on the topic of research ethics; furthermore, the other items of the survey can be used for other groups without hindrance.

Weakness/Limitation

Because these results are from a single country, it is difficult to generalize them to other countries, including other Asian countries. No comparable studies have used the same measuring tools; therefore, it is difficult to compare the present results with those of other studies. It was not possible to estimate the contributing factors to knowledge level or attitude scores through logistic regression analysis due to the limitation of the scale of each variable. The other model should be considered for this purpose.

Future Direction

A multi-national study using the same tool may be able to provide more precise information on faculty members’ knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics, thereby supporting the development of a more generalized training program.

Conclusion

The null hypotheses were evaluated as follows. The first hypothesis, “there would be no difference in nursing faculty members’ knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics according to their characteristics,” was accepted for age and gender, but not for job title, terminal education degree, length of research career, role in an academic society, and having obtained a certificate for completing a research ethics course. The second hypothesis, “there would be no difference in nursing faculty members’ knowledge of and attitudes toward research ethics according to the institutional research environment” was not accepted, except for knowledge levels according to the availability of an ethics training course. The third hypothesis, “there would be no correlations between nursing faculty members’ knowledge of research ethics and their attitudes,” was not accepted (correlation coefficient = .246, p < .001).

More intensive training courses should be developed and implemented for nursing faculty in Korea on research ethics, covering topics such as conflicts of interest, copyright, definitions of plagiarism and duplicate publications, application for IRB approval, and informed consent forms. Furthermore, plagiarism-checking program should be provided to faculty members by their institutions. Faculty members should be encouraged to work as editorial board members or reviewers more actively, to help them become more familiar with practices based on research ethics.

Supplemental Material

dataset_Coding_2 – Supplemental material for Nursing Faculties’ Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Research Ethics According to Demographic Characteristics and Institutional Environment in Korea

Supplemental material, dataset_Coding_2 for Nursing Faculties’ Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Research Ethics According to Demographic Characteristics and Institutional Environment in Korea by Sukhee Ahn, Geum Hee Jeong, Hye Sook Shin, Jeung-Im Kim, Yunmi Kim, Ju-Eun Song, Sun-Hee Kim, Ju Hee Kim, Yun Jung Lee, Young A. Song, Eun Hee Lee and Myoung-Hee Kim in SAGE Open

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

Supplemental Material

suppl_2_table_goodness_of_fit – Supplemental material for Nursing Faculties’ Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Research Ethics According to Demographic Characteristics and Institutional Environment in Korea

Supplemental material, suppl_2_table_goodness_of_fit for Nursing Faculties’ Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Research Ethics According to Demographic Characteristics and Institutional Environment in Korea by Sukhee Ahn, Geum Hee Jeong, Hye Sook Shin, Jeung-Im Kim, Yunmi Kim, Ju-Eun Song, Sun-Hee Kim, Ju Hee Kim, Yun Jung Lee, Young A. Song, Eun Hee Lee and Myoung-Hee Kim in SAGE Open

Supplemental Material

suppl__enquette – Supplemental material for Nursing Faculties’ Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Research Ethics According to Demographic Characteristics and Institutional Environment in Korea

Supplemental material, suppl__enquette for Nursing Faculties’ Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Research Ethics According to Demographic Characteristics and Institutional Environment in Korea by Sukhee Ahn, Geum Hee Jeong, Hye Sook Shin, Jeung-Im Kim, Yunmi Kim, Ju-Eun Song, Sun-Hee Kim, Ju Hee Kim, Yun Jung Lee, Young A. Song, Eun Hee Lee and Myoung-Hee Kim in SAGE Open

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Accessibility Statement

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available after publication. Anyone can use the data for research and educational purpose without authors’ permission. Use of metadata analysis is also recommended. Data files are available from Harvard Dataverse:

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Informed consent from all subjects was received. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Institute (HIRB 2017-006).

ORCID iD

Geum Hee Jeong

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Adhikari

Paudel

Aro

A. R.

Adhikari

T. B.

Adhikari

Mishra

S. R.

(2016). Knowledge, attitude and practice of healthcare ethics among resident doctors and ward nurses from a resource poor setting, Nepal. BMC Medical Ethics, 17(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0154-9

Asman

Melnikov

Barnoy

Tabak

(2019). Experiences, behaviors, and perceptions of registered nurses regarding research ethics and misconduct. Nursing Ethics, 26(3), 859–869. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733017727152

Ayoub

N. M.

Qandil

A. M.

McCutchan

J. A.

(2019). Knowledge, attitudes, and practice regarding research ethics committees among health care faculty at two public universities in Jordan. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14(4), 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619851351

Breet

Botha

Horn

Swartz

(2018). Academic and scientific authorship practices: A survey among South African researchers. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13(4), 412–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264618789253

Cho

K. C.

Shin

(2014). Operational effectiveness of blended e-learning program for nursing research ethics. Nursing Ethics, 21(4), 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733013505310

Choe

Song

Kang

(2013). Recognizing bioethical issues and ethical qualification in nursing students and faculty in South Korea. Nursing Ethics, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733012472734

Directory of Open Access Journals. (2019). Principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing (3rd version). https://doaj.org/bestpractice

El-Dessouky

H. F.

Abdel-Aziz

A. M.

Ibrahim

Moni

Abul Fadl

Silverman

(2011). Knowledge, awareness, and attitudes about research ethics among dental faculty in the Middle East: A pilot study. International Journal of Dentistry, 2011, Article 694759. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/694759

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.

10.

Felaefel

Salem

Jaafar

Jassim

Edwards

Rashid-Doubell

. . . Silverman

(2018). A cross-sectional survey study to assess prevalence and attitudes regarding research misconduct among investigators in the Middle East. Journal of Academic Ethics, 16(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9295-9

11.

Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine. (2019). STROBE statement. https://strobe-statement.org/

12.

Jeong

I. S.

(2015). Bioethical approach for nursing research—focused on the use of research ethics committees. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 45(3), 315–322. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2015.45.3.315

13.

Jeong

I. S.

M. O.

Kim

K. S.

Lee

K. J.

Yang

(2010). Educational needs assessment on research ethics among nursing researchers. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 40(4), 515–523. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2010.40.4.515

14.

Y. S.

(2009). Evaluation of a team-based learning tutor training workshop on research and publication ethics by faculty and staff participants. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Profession, 6(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2009.6.5

15.

Kandeel

El-Nemer

Ali

N. M.

Kassem

El-Setouhy

Elgharieb

M. E.

. . . Silverman

H. J.

(2011). A multicenter study of the awareness and attitudes of Egyptian faculty towards research ethics: A pilot study. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(4), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2011.6.4.99

16.

Linacre

J. M.

(2002). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878.

17.

Numminen

Leino-Kilpi

van der Arend

Katajisto

(2011). Comparison of nurse educators’ and nursing students’ descriptions of teaching codes of ethics. Nursing Ethics, 18(5), 710–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733011408054

18.

Psychology Dictionary. (2009). Publication ethics. https://psychologydictionary.org/publication-ethics/

19.

Uhm

C. S.

(2016). What is research misconducts? Publication ethics is as important as research integrity. Applied Microscopy, 46(2), 67–70. https://doi.org/10.9729/AM.2016.46.2.67

20.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Service Office of Research Integrity. (2019). Research misconduct. https://ori.hhs.gov/research-misconduct

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB

0.01 MB

0.02 MB