Acceptability by Parents and Children of Deception in Pediatric Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Deception has been used to investigate the role of developmental and behavioral factors in child health; however, its acceptability for use in pediatric research has received little empirical attention. This study examined the acceptability of deception in a pediatric pain research study as assessed through participating children's and parents' long-term perceptions of its use. METHOD: Ninety-four children (52 boys; mean age = 12.77 yr) and their parents (86 mothers, 8 fathers) completed a structured interview that assessed perceptions of various aspects of deception in a pediatric pain study, 2.5 years after participating. RESULTS: A minority of parents (25.5%) and children (13.8%) spontaneously recalled that deception was used. Overall, parents and children reported positive experiences with research participation, felt comfortable with the debriefing process, and deemed the research to be of societal importance. Opinions about researchers and psychologists were not negatively impacted, and most reported willingness to participate in research involving deception again. CONCLUSION: When thoughtfully planned and disclosed, deception in pediatric research seems to be acceptable to parents and children. Future research should further examine the acceptability of deception and alternatives (e.g., authorized deception) among pediatric samples.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".