Comparar métodos
Revisa los métodos seleccionados uno junto a otro; las filas que difieren aparecen resaltadas.
| Procedimientos de Debriefing de Participantes× | Proceso de Solicitud al Comité de Ética× | |
|---|---|---|
| Campo | Ética de la investigación | Ética de la investigación |
| Familia | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Año de origen≠ | 1982 | 1991 |
| Autor original≠ | American Psychological Association; International research ethics community | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; International research oversight organizations |
| Tipo≠ | Procedure | Guideline |
| Fuente seminal≠ | American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Section 8.08 - Debriefing. link ↗ | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Protection of Human Subjects. Code of Federal Regulations Title 45, Part 46, Section 46.109. link ↗ |
| Alias | debriefing, post-study debriefing, debrief session, participant disclosure | IRB application, REC application, ethics approval, protocol submission |
| Relacionados | 5 | 5 |
| Resumen≠ | Participant debriefing is a post-study conversation or disclosure providing information to participants after research participation concludes. Debriefing serves multiple ethical purposes: (1) explaining the research aims and design, (2) revealing any deception (if applicable), (3) addressing misconceptions, (4) offering support if the research caused discomfort, (5) providing information about study findings, and (6) ensuring participants understand their rights (e.g., right to withdraw data). Debriefing is especially important in research involving deception (participants must learn the truth), sensitive topics (participants may experience distress), or invasive procedures (participants deserve explanation). The American Psychological Association's Ethical Code, ESOMAR guidelines, and international research ethics frameworks emphasize debriefing as a core protective procedure. | Submitting a research protocol to an ethics committee (IRB, REC, or equivalent) is a mandatory procedural gateway in human subjects research. The application process requires researchers to document their study design, justify scientific rationale, disclose risks and benefits, provide participant protections (informed consent forms), and address ethical considerations. The submission includes a completed ethics application form, protocol document, consent forms, researcher CVs, and evidence of institutional support. This standardized process enables ethics committees to conduct rigorous, timely, and consistent review before research commences. |
| ScholarGateConjunto de datos ↗ |
|
|