Gå til innholdScholarGate
BibliotekMitt bibliotekPultenReview StudioAssistent
Logg inn
Participant Debriefing Procedures/Bevis
Metodebevisregister

Participant Debriefing Procedures

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.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Kilderegister

Siteringer kopiert ordrett fra metodens kilderegister. Ingen påstandsnivåverifisering er underforstått fra dem.

Post-Study Disclosure and Ethical Debriefing Protocols for Research Participants
Taksonomisk metoderegister · process-pipeline / research-ethics
  • American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Section 8.08 - Debriefing. · URL
  • ESOMAR. (2016). ESOMAR Guideline: Conducting Qualitative Research Ethically. Data Collection Ethics. · URL
  • The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. · URL
  • Williamson, V., & Williams, M. (2011). Using Narratives to Assess Ethical Issues in Longitudinal Research. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 3(1), 92-106. · URL
Åpne full metode

Kuraterte påstander

Påstander lagret i bevishovedboken, hver med sin egen vurdering.

Ingen kuraterte påstander ennå

Denne visningen finner ikke opp en påstandsvurdering når hovedboken ikke har noen.

Relaterte metoder

Generert fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinforslåtte relasjoner – ingen bevispåstand er underforstått.

Same method familyDeception and Debriefing in Researchmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyEthics Committee Application Processmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyResearch with Vulnerable Populationsmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyRisk-Benefit Assessment in Research Protocolsmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Bevisstatus

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Kilder

4 registrerte siteringer, kopiert fra metodens kilderegister.

Handlinger

Åpne metodeside
ScholarGate

Et innholdsfokusert oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder — hva hver metode er, hvordan den fungerer, og hvor den kommer fra.

Åpne data (CC-BY)

Oppdag

  • Bibliotek
  • Søk i metoder…
  • Bla etter fagfelt
  • Fagfelt
  • Reise
  • Sammenlign
  • Hvilken metode?

Referanse

  • Fagområder
  • Atlas
  • Ordliste
  • Metodikk
  • Filosofi

Arbeidsområde

  • Mitt bibliotek
  • Pulten
  • Chat

Selskap

  • Om
  • Priser
  • Kontakt
  • Foreslå en metode

Oppføringene er sammenstilt fra publiserte kilder til referansebruk. Å kontrollere at informasjonen er korrekt og egnet for ditt eget bruk, er fremdeles ditt eget ansvar.

© 2026 ScholarGate · Et oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder
  • Personvern
  • Informasjonskapsler
  • Vilkår
  • Slett konto