RE: research ethics question

["Dan Taube" <dtaube@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Mark,  
 
If I were to add to the hypothetical that the researcher was a mandated reporter, then reporting (#2) would be the option I would choose.  The response on the CTS-P/C would clearly meet the reasonable suspicion standard in almost all states in the U.S., even without more information. There are only two states that require that a child "come before" the mandated reporter (last time I read closely in this area, these states were Pennslyvania and Colorado). And even in those states, one could make a good argument that the child's provision of the information via computer administration of the CTS would meet the threshold of requiring a report, because the source of the information was the child, and the recipient was the mandated reporter. Also, I do not think the time lag (weeks or months) is an issue--in most states, regardless of whether the abuse has occurred this morning or 10 years ago, once a reporter has reasonable suspicion, s/he must make the mandatory report. However, regarding option #2, absent a legal requirement to the contrary, there is no ethical duty, in my estimation, to notify the parents that such a report was made, and given that  informing the parent might increase the risk of harm to a child, there may be an ethical duty to keep the report from the parent so as to prevent greater harm.
 
I presume informed consent as to the limits to confidentiality would occur in almost all such research--but if one has not engaged in this aspect of informed consent, and is a mandated reporter, there is no "ethical" way to resolve this issue, and there is no way to "do no harm" Reporting breaches confidentiality, and a failure to do so potentially fails to protect a child from serious violence. So I'd be left with a cost-benefit analysis, and would still likely report the abuse because of the notion that we choose the lesser harm--breaches of confidentiality--when we have a choice among evils, and because of legal duties imposed upon mandated reporters. 
 
If the researcher is NOT a mandated reporter, the situation gets stickier--and relies more heavily on institutional and professional policy regarding the duties of researchers in regards to protecting participants from harm and reporting abuse. As a few of our colleagues have mentioned in their responses to your interesting question, a close read of the reporting law would be in order, as would close attention to decisions as to disclosure of abuse to CPS prior to initiating the research and in the consent procedure. As I know you are aware, IRBs frequently require disclosures of abuse reporting requirements, among other things, in the consent process, even where the reporter might be non-mandated. 
 
I would think it very problematic to refrain from doing this type of research. But as has been been discussed articulately in some of the articles already referred to by others on this list, the issue of how informed consent as to reporting requirements might influence the validity of child and adult reponses to a questions about abuse looms large. 
 
Regards, 
 
Dan Taube

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Chaffin, Mark J. [mailto:Mark-Chaffin@ouhsc.edu] 
	Sent: Sat 6/21/2003 9:02 AM 
	To: Child Maltreatment Researchers 
	Cc: 
	Subject: research ethics question
	
	

	I have a question on research ethics and mandatory child abuse reporting for which I would like to gauge the opinions of child abuse researchers out there.
	
	Suppose data is collected from children on an instrument such as the Conflict Tactics Scale-Parent/Child, using a computer self-report methodology.  In this methodology, the data collector never sees the child's responses, and the responses exist only as an ASCII file of numerical data.  The data collector does not observe signs of abuse or personally receive any disclosure of abuse.  Some weeks or months later, after the data is uploaded, a data analyst notices that some children have endorsed CTS-PC items suggesting severe parent-to-child violence.  The data set includes no identifying information about the child, but the technology does exist within the study to track back to an indentifiable child through a separate subject key table by breaking the code between subject ID's and names.  What is the ethical and legal responsibility of the study?  Would it be:
	
	1) Do nothing--this does not rise to the level of a specific reasonable suspicion which would trigger reporting requirements
	2) Track the identity of the child back through the key and make a report to the authorities.  If so, should the study also notify the parent (presumptive perpetrator) that the report was made?
	3) Track the identity of the child back through the key and re-contact the child in order to clarify their response to the computer and clarify if there is a reasonable suspicion which rises to the level of a reporting requirement.  If so, should the parent (presumptive perpetrator) be contacted first?
	4) Do something different than the options above--please specify
	5) You ethically shouldn't do this study in the first place.
	
	Thanks for your input.
	
	Mark Chaffin
	
	

Attachment Converted: "c:\docume~1\NDACAN\applic~1\qualcomm\eudora\attach\winmail.dat"