65 - A Survey of Researchers’ Experiences with Assent and Child Participants in Research

Background:  Policies often recommend the use of assent practices in ethics protocols for research activities with children. However, assent procedures can vary substantially and are not typically reported in publications (Ward et al., 2024). The purpose of this project was to survey researchers about their experiences with assent and child participants.

Methods:  We identified a convenience sample of ≈1,200 early childhood researchers of which ≈700 completed our survey. We sourced respondents from the contact information of published articles (period, 2017-2024) in the areas of psychology, education, and pediatrics. Prospective participants received a personal email invitation with a unique link to a Qualtrics™ survey. The survey was composed of four sections: sociodemographics, assent experiences, assent-related challenges, and open-ended views on assent. Sections two and three were composed of Likert-type, ranking, and visual analog scale items, including integrated branching and randomization logics to ensure that participants saw only questions that were relevant to them and that missing values were not due to item positioning within the survey. As part of our analyses we obtained extensive descriptive statistics from selected variables. In addition, we built a conceptual model of assent by identifying key predictive (e.g., formal knowledge on assent) and outcome variables within our dataset (e.g., diversity of assent-seeking practices). The conceptual model was subsequently tested through regression modeling.

Results:  Selected findings are shared here. When queried about what resources they used to develop assent protocols, respondents most often reported relying on institutional review board guidelines/policies and personal experience. Individuals with comparatively more research experience in years reported using fewer assent-seeking procedures and assent responses. Also, men were less likely to report using varied procedures and responses. By contrast those with higher self-reported familiarity with the concept of assent reported using a greater variety of assent procedures in their research practice. Finally, the field of study (medical, behavioral, educational, other) and the geographical region of the researchers had a negligible impact on the variety of assent procedures and responses that researchers reported using in their practice. While region and field of study were not significant predictors, they were important covariates supporting the integrity of self-reported familiarity and gender as predictors.

Limitations: One limitation is related to the sampling method. While we were interested in early childhood researchers’ experiences with and use of assent procedures, our sampling method identified potential participants from author information from highly-ranked journals. Thus, our sample may not represent what is occurring more broadly in early childhood research because these respondents may have relatively more experience and competence than typical researchers.

Discussion:  A clear finding was the influence of regulatory and professional policies and guidelines on the development of assent procedures. This highlights the power that organizations have on the practices of early childhood researchers and emphasizes the importance of writing policies with strong empirical and ethical foundations. Another direction for future research would be to figure out why variability in assent procedures seems to decrease with years of experience. Finally, future researchers might be interested in figuring out what types of continuing education or professional development related to assent would be useful for the research community.