RE: Informed Consent

["Karen Wade" <kwade@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ron,

I was able to conduct anonymous telephone interviews using verbal
consent. I was able to convince the IRB that anonymity was essential
to obtaining valid data on a sensitive subject. The methodology for
the recruitment of subjects, and the interview, was developed to
assure that subject identity was truly anonymous, that is, known to no
one. 

I have know other researchers who have obtained consent from subjects
on sensitive topics by having subjects submit signed consents
separately from any data collection, thereby separating a link between
identity and responses. In this case there was a pile of x# signed
consents and a pile of X# completed interview forms. No code number
linked the signed consent to the subjects' data. 

I sincerely believe that, when interviewing subjects on sensitive
subjects (and the more sensitive the subject, the more this principle
applies), that if asked to disclose their identity at all, suspicions
are raised in the minds of the subjects. This is the difference
between anonymity and confidentiality. In true anonymity, no one knows
the identity of the participant, or can even acquire it via code.
Confidentiality, while addressing protection of subjects, nontheless
permits a link between subject identity and his/her data on the part
of someone. For some topics confidentiality provides adequate
protection for subjects to honestly disclose sensitive information.
For more "loaded" topics (and polygraph results for sexual offenders
would probably qualify as a "loaded" issue) I would work with an IRB
toward providing consent under conditions of anonymity. If a written
consent is required, I would argue for a "signature" that is symbolic
rather than true identification (i.e. John Doe). If the IRB is very
strict, it could mean that an external person monitors how you obtain
consent, but I think it is a worthwhile trade-off to suffer the
inconvenience of a monitor but to be able to offer subjects true
anonymity.

I'll be happy to provide more info off-list if that would be helpful. 
Karen

Karen Beck Wade, Ph.D.
Director, ChildStrength Research Project
WestEd
4665 Lampson Ave
Los Alamitos, CA
Tel (562) 799-5139
Kwade@WestEd.org



<<< "Ron Kokish" <dka@northcoast.com>  1/22  1:10p >>>
Thank you for the information on survey research.

>>it may as well be a club, whip, or other coercion method as it
doesn't
show anything of value.<<

Quite to the contrary, a complete sexual history and the ability to
monitor
certain behaviors is of great value in sex offender management and
treatment, but only to the degree our information reflects actual
events. We
cannot obtain equivalent information with whips and clubs, because
that
would be illegal. Polygraphy is not. Also, with whips and clubs we
have no
assurance about accuracy. Polygraphy at least holds out the promise of
reasonable accuracy and known error rates.

The degree to which this promise is kept is of course, in dispute.
Empirically supported claims range from "no better than chance" to
"near
99%." It seems reasonable to assume that accuracy varies across
individuals,
settings, procedures and examiners. How wide these variations are and
how
they inter-relate cannot be ascertained at this time.  Nonetheless,
polygraphy is coming into increasingly wide-spread use in sexual
offender
treatment and management, perhaps partly because anecdotal reports
(including my own) are optimistic. Colorado now mandates the procedure
for
all sexual offenders in community based programs. Given these
circumstances,
it seems to me that research which can potentially shed light on the
accuracy issue would be worth undertaking.

Being new to research, I posted a question about informed consent.
I've
received several useful answers and thank those who are taking time to
respond. It may be worth noticing that several respondents included
comments
on polygraphy itself. Some were so focused on the polygraphy issue,
they
missed my question altogether. There seems to be a great deal of
emotion on
both sides of this issue. (To use or not to use?) I think it best to
not let
personal values and feelings guide our practice or our research in
this
area.

Thanks again to those who sent suggestions. I wouldn't mind more.

****************************************************************************
***
  Ron Kokish at Delson-Kokish Associates,  P.O. Box 476, Trinidad, CA
95570
   Clinical and Forensic Consultation and Training for Agencies and
Courts
     (707)677-3181 (voice)   ron@delko.net (Email)   (707) 677-0187
(fax)
       ******  On the World Wide Web @  www.northcoast.com/~dka 
******



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
[mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu]On Behalf Of
John M Price PhD
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 11:31 AM
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Cc: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
Subject: RE: Informed Consent