Browsing by Subject "Professional Practice"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Researcher practices on returning genetic research results.
    (Genet Test Mol Biomarkers, 2010-12) Heaney, Christopher; Tindall, Genevieve; Lucas, Joe; Haga, Susanne B
    BACKGROUND/AIMS: as genetic and genomic research proliferates, debate has ensued about returning results to participants. In addition to consideration of the benefits and harms to participants, researchers must also consider the logistical and financial feasibility of returning research results. However, little data exist of actual researcher practices. METHODS: we conducted an online survey of 446 corresponding authors of genetic/genomic studies conducted in the United States and published in 2006-2007 to assess the frequency with which they considered, offered to, or actually returned research results, what factors influenced these decisions, and the method of communicating results. RESULTS: the response rate was 24% (105/446). Fifty-four percent of respondents considered the issue of returning research results to participants, 28% offered to return individual research results, and 24% actually returned individual research results. Of those who considered the issue of returning research results during the study planning phase, the most common factors considered were whether research results were deemed clinically useful (18%) and respect for participants (13%). Researchers who had a medical degree and conducted studies on children were significantly more likely to offer to return or actually return individual results compared to those with a Ph.D. only. CONCLUSIONS: we speculate that issues associated with clinical validity and respect for participants dominated concerns of time and expense given the prominent and continuing ethical debates surrounding genetics and genomics research. The substantial number of researchers who did not consider returning research results suggests that researchers and institutional review boards need to devote more attention to a topic about which research participants are interested.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The enhanced examination for professional practice in psychology: A viable approach?
    (The American psychologist, 2020-01) Callahan, Jennifer L; Bell, Debora J; Davila, Joanne; Johnson, Sheri L; Strauman, Timothy J; Yee, Cindy M
    Health disciplines have increasingly required competency-based evaluations as a licensure prerequisite. In keeping with this trend, the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) has begun to develop a second part to the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP). The resulting 2-part examination is collectively referred to as the Enhanced EPPP. Part 1 of the Enhanced EPPP, which consists of the current exam, is designed to be an assessment of knowledge. Part 2 of the Enhanced EPPP is newly developed and intended to address the need for a competency-based evaluation. To date, ASPPB has addressed some standard facets of validity for the EPPP Part 2, but not others. In addition, the EPPP Part 2 has yet to be subjected to a broader validation process, in which the suitability of the test for its intended purpose is evaluated. Implementation of the EPPP Part 2 before validation could have negative consequences for those seeking to enter the profession and for the general public (e.g., potential restriction of diversity in the psychology workforce). For jurisdictions implementing the EPPP Part 2, failure to gather and report the evidence required for use of a test in a forensic context may also open the door for legal challenges. We end with suggestions for feasible research that could significantly enhance the validation process for the EPPP Part 2 and offer jurisdictions concrete suggestions of features to look for in determining whether and when to implement the Enhanced EPPP. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).