Variation in how informed consent comprehension tests have been developed may be largely due to the absence of a standardized construct definition. Developing a construct definition would provide a standardized framework for determining how an instrument should be constructed, implemented, interpreted, and applied. Therefore, we utilized the Delphi consensus approach with an international expert panel (N= 19) to gather knowledge, opinions and eventually consensus for a construct definition. Expert consensus was achieved after three revision cycles. While acknowledging that there are limitations to this study, it nonetheless should be considered as a step toward standardization of a construct definition of informed consent comprehension.
AdlerM. & ZiglioE. (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health. London: Jessica Kingsley.
2.
AldersonJ. C. & BachmanL. F. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BjørnE.RosselP. & HolmS. (1999). Can the written information to research subjects be improved? An empirical study. Journal of Medical Ethics, 25(3), 263–267.
4.
BogardusS. T.HolmboeE.Jr & JekelJ. F. (1999). Perils, pitfalls, and possibilities in talking about medical risk. Journal of the American Medical Association, 281(11), 1037–1041.
5.
DaughertyC.RatainM. J.GrochowskiE.StockingC.KodishE.MickR. & SieglerM. (1995). Perceptions of cancer patients and their physicians involved in phase I trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 13(5), 1062–1072.
6.
FloryJ. & EmanuelE. (2004). Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 292(13), 1593–1601.
7.
FowlesJ. & FowlesR. B. (1978). Handbook of futures research. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
8.
HannonB. & DanemanM. (2001). Susceptibility to semantic illusions: An individual-differences perspective. Memory & Cognition, 29, 449–461.
9.
International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. (1996). ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6 (R1). Available online at http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA482.pdf.
10.
JoffeS.CookE. F.ClearyP. D.ClarkJ. W., & WeeksJ. C. (2001). Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: A cross-sectional survey. The Lancet, 358(9295), 1772–1777.
11.
KintschW. & RawsonK. A. (2005). Comprehension. In SnowlingM. J. & HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 209–276). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
12.
LynöeN.SandlundM.DahlqvistG., & JacobssonL. (1991). Informed consent: Study of quality of information given to participants in a clinical trial. British Medical Journal, 303(6803), 610–613.
13.
MillerC. K.O'DonnellD. C.SearightH. R., & BarbarashR. A. (1996). The Deaconess Informed Consent Comprehension Test: An assessment tool for clinical research subjects. Pharmacotherapy, 16(5), 872–878.
PottsG. R. & PetersonS. B. (1985). Incorporation versus compartmentalization in memory for discourse. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(1), 107–118.
17.
SamuelsS. J. & KamilM. L. (1984). Models of the reading process. In PearsonP. D.MosenthalP.KamilM., & BarrR. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman, Inc.
18.
SchwartzS.PatrickD. L., & YuehB. (2001). Quality-of-life outcomes in the evaluation of head and neck cancer treatments. Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, 127(6), 673–678.
19.
SpreitzerG. M. & SonensheinS. (2004). Toward the construct definition of positive deviance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 828–847.
20.
SteadM.EadieD.GordonD. & AngusK. (2005). “Hello, hello—it's English I speak!”: A qualitative exploration of patients' understanding of the science of clinical trials. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(11), 664–669.
21.
SugarmanJ.LavoriP. W.BoegerM.CainC.EdsonR.MorrisonV., & YehS. S. (2005). Evaluating the quality of informed consent. Clinical Trials, 2(1), 34–41.
22.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2001). Guidance for institutional review boards and clinical investigators: A guide to informed consent. Retrieved August 12, 2006 from http://www.fda.gov/oc/ohrt/irbs/informedconsent.html.
23.
YuvalR.HalonD. A.MerdlerA.KhaderN.KarkabiB.UzielK., & LewisB. S. (2000). Patient comprehension and reaction to participating in a double-blind randomized clinical trial (ISIS-4) in acute myocardial infarction. Archives of Internal Medicine, 160(8), 1142–1146.
