167
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Perspectives

Roses and Balances: A Paradigm for Constructive Ethical Review of Health Professions Education Research

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon &
Pages 529-535 | Published online: 25 May 2021

References

  • Schuwirth LWT, Durning SJ. Ethics approval for health professions education research: are we going too far down the barrel? Med Educ. 2019;53(10):956–958. doi:10.1111/medu.13942
  • Schutte T, Kaushik K, Postmes L, Bremer A. Ethics approval for health professions education research: necessary and beneficial. Med Edu. 2020;54(7):672. doi:10.1111/medu.14140
  • van den Broek WES, Scheele F, Ten Cate O, van Delden JJM. A health professions education research-specific ethical review board. Acad Med. 2016;91(12):1590–1591. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001430
  • Eikelboom JI, Ten Cate OT, Jaarsma D, Raat JA, Schuwirth L, van Delden JJ. A framework for the ethics review of education research. Med Educ. 2012;46(8):731–733. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04293.x
  • DeMeo S, Heflin MT, Nagler A. In Reply to van den Broek et al. Acad Med. 2016;91(12):1591. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001462
  • Hally E, Walsh K. Research ethics and medical education. Med Teach. 2016;38(1):105–106. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2014.956068
  • van den Broek WE, Wouters RH, van Delden JJ. In response to ‘Medical Education Research: is participation fair?’. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4(3):158–159. doi:10.1007/s40037-015-0188-6
  • Wiggins JS. An informal history of the interpersonal circumplex tradition. J Pers Assess. 1996;66(2):217–233. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6602_2
  • Wiggins JST. When is a Circumplex an “Interpersonal Circumplex”? The Case of Supportive Actions. Plutchik RC, H R, editor. Washington DC, USA: American Psychological Association; 1997.
  • Leary T. Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality: A Functional Theory and Methodology for Personality Evaluation. New York, USA: Ronald Press Co; 1957.
  • Orford J. The interpersonal circumplex - a theory and method for applied-psychology. Hum Relat. 1994;47(11):1347–1375. doi:10.1177/001872679404701103
  • Moskowitz DS. Cross-situational generality and the interpersonal circumplex. Am Psychol Assoc. 1994;921–33.
  • Walsh K. Medical education research: is participation fair? Perspect Med Educ. 2014;3(5):379–382. doi:10.1007/s40037-014-0120-5
  • Brown C, Spiro J, Quinton S. The role of research ethics committees: friend or foe in educational research? An exploratory study. Brit Educ Res J. 2020;46(4):747–769. doi:10.1002/berj.3654
  • DeMeo SD, Nagler A, Heflin MT. Development of a health professions education research-specific institutional review board template. Acad Med. 2016;91(2):229–232. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000987
  • Ten Cate O. Why the ethics of medical education research differs from that of medical research. Med Educ. 2009;43(7):608–610. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03385.x
  • McAreavey R, Muir J. Research ethics committees: values and power in higher education. Int J Soc Res Method. 2011;14(5):391–405. doi:10.1080/13645579.2011.565635
  • Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Mechaber AJ, et al. Medical education research and IRB review: an analysis and comparison of the IRB review process at six institutions. Acad Med. 2007;82(7):654–660. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318065be1e
  • Keune JD, Brunsvold ME, Hohmann E, Korndorffer JR Jr, Weinstein DF, Smink DS. The ethics of conducting graduate medical education research on residents. Acad Med. 2013;88(4):449–453. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182854bef