The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accuracy of the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR) for Measuring Children’s Competence to Consent to Clinical Research
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: An objective assessment of children's competence to consent to research participation is currently not possible. Age limits for asking children's consent vary considerably between countries, and, to our knowledge, the correlation between competence and children's age has never been systematically investigated. OBJECTIVES: To test a standardized competence assessment instrument for children by modifying the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR), to investigate its reliability and validity, and to examine the correlation of its assessment with age and estimate cutoff ages. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective study included children and adolescents aged 6 to 18 years in the inpatient and outpatient departments of allergology, gastroenterology, oncology, ophthalmology, and pulmonology from January 1, 2012, through January 1, 2014. Participants were eligible for clinical research studies, including observational studies and randomized clinical trials. EXPOSURES: Competence judgments by experts aware of the 4 relevant criteria-understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and choice-were used to establish the reference standard. The index test was the MacCAT-CR, which used a semistructured interview format. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Interrater reliability, validity, and dimensionality of the MacCAT-CR and estimated cutoff ages for competence. RESULTS: Of 209 eligible patients, we included 161 (mean age, 10.6 years; 47.2% male). Good reproducibility of MacCAT-CR total and subscale scores was observed (intraclass correlation coefficient range, 0.68-0.92). We confirmed unidimensionality of the MacCAT-CR. By the reference standard, we judged 54 children (33.5%) to be incompetent; by the MacCAT-CR, 61 children (37.9%). Criterion-related validity of MacCAT-CR scores was supported by high overall accuracy in correctly classifying children as competent against the reference standard (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, 0.78). Age was a good predictor of competence on the MacCAT-CR (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, 0.90). In children younger than 9.6 years, competence was unlikely (sensitivity, 90%); in those older than 11.2 years, competence was probable (specificity, 90%). The optimal cutoff age was 10.4 years (sensitivity, 81%; specificity, 84%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The MacCAT-CR demonstrated strong psychometric properties. In children aged 9.6 to 11.2 years, consent may be justified when competence can be demonstrated in individual cases by the MacCAT-CR. The results contribute to a scientific underpinning of regulations for clinical research directed toward children.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“A change-over occurred between 9.6 and 11.2 years, and the cross-over point was estimated at 10.4 years [8].”
From Medical decision-making in children and adolescents: developmental and neuroscientific aspects (2017) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“A recent study demonstrated that generally children older than 11.2 years may be competent to consent to clinical research [8].”
From Medical decision-making in children and adolescents: developmental and neuroscientific aspects (2017) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“The study demonstrated that age limits for children to be deemed competent to decide on research participation could be estimated as follows: children of 11.2 years and above generally appeared to be competent, whereas children of 9.6 years and younger were generally not competent.”
From Medical decision-making in children and adolescents: developmental and neuroscientific aspects (2017) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“Results of a recent study on children’s competence to consent to clinical research showed that the MacCAT could also be validly and reliably used in children.”
From Medical decision-making in children and adolescents: developmental and neuroscientific aspects (2017) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“In the same study, the four domains representing competence in most jurisdictions (understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and expressing a choice) appeared to constitute a single trait in children.”
From Medical decision-making in children and adolescents: developmental and neuroscientific aspects (2017) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“In the clinical research context, children of 11.2 years and above were generally competent.”
From Medical decision-making in children and adolescents: developmental and neuroscientific aspects (2017) · cites this paper as [8]
Citations
Cites
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Principles of Biomedical Ethics
(2012) · Thieves of Virtue · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9079.003.0009 · Cited by 13,453
Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316447303300309 · Cited by 3,354
Babyak, M. A. (2004) · Psychosomatic Medicine · doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000127692.23278.a9 · Cited by 2,061
Assessment of Patients' Competence to Consent to Treatment
Appelbaum, P. S. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmcp074045 · Cited by 1,427
Fischer, G. H., & Molenaar, I. W. (1995) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4230-7 · Cited by 1,143
The MacCAT-T: a clinical tool to assess patients' capacities to make treatment decisions
(1997) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/ps.48.11.1415 · Cited by 704
Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice
Bartholome, W. G. (1995) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.96.5.981 · Cited by 653
Assessing Decisional Capacity for Clinical Research or Treatment: A Review of Instruments
Dunn, L. B., Nowrangi, M. A., Palmer, B. W., Jeste, D. V., & Saks, E. R. (2006) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.2006.163.8.1323 · Cited by 464
MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR)
Kreutzer, J. S., DeLuca, J., & Caplan, B. (2010) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_4894 · Cited by 270
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–148 of 148
Lin, H., Abi‐Jaoude, E., Desarkar, P., Wang, W., Ameis, S. H., Lai, M., Lunsky, Y., & Rajji, T. K. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0282114 · Cited by 2
Salayev, K., Aslanova, U., & Münir, K. (2023) · Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics · doi:10.1177/15562646231219384 · Cited by 2
Groff, E., Orzechowski, M., Schuetz, C., & Steger, F. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20010470 · Cited by 2
The Use of Dogmas in Pediatric Research Ethics
de Vries, M. C. (2015) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2015.1088984 · Cited by 2
Autonomia da vontade da criança e do adolescente
Colucci, C. F. P. (2020) · doi:10.11606/t.2.2020.tde-28042021-234805 · Cited by 2
Who decides? Consent for healthcare decisions of minors in the United States
Stettner, N. M., Lavelle, E. N., & Cafferty, P. W. (2023) · Current Opinion in Pediatrics · doi:10.1097/mop.0000000000001218 · Cited by 1
Pediatric Research without Parental Permission
Wendler, D. S. (2023) · The Journal of Pediatrics · doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2023.113896 · Cited by 1
Pantoja, J. S. D. (2023) · Ius et Praxis · doi:10.4067/s0718-00122023000300045 · Cited by 1
L’utilisation du placebo dans les essais cliniques est-elle légitime ?
Durand, G. (2024) · Éthique & Santé · doi:10.1016/j.etiqe.2024.05.002 · Cited by 2
Beaumont, E., & Porter, M. A. (2024) · Psychiatry Psychology and Law · doi:10.1080/13218719.2024.2346716 · Cited by 1
Mitchell, F. S., Erio, K., & Sohal, S. S. (2024) · Asian Journal of Ethics in Health and Medicine · doi:10.51847/surdqws9om · Cited by 1
Jeon, H., Kim, S., & Park, J. (2025) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-025-10172-x · Cited by 1
Kreniske, P., Isenberg, H., Nalugoda, F., Hoffman, S., Ott, M. A., Kigozi, G., Lutalo, T., Nakyanjo, N., Ddaaki, W. G., Ssekubugu, R., et al. (2025) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-025-01342-x · Cited by 1
Chahal, N., Rush, J. P., Manlhiot, C., Delayun, C., Sananes, R., Runeckles, K., Collins, T. H., O’Shea, S., & McCrindle, B. W. (2021) · Journal of Pediatric Health Care · doi:10.1016/j.pedhc.2021.04.007 · Cited by 1
Sonkurt, H. O., Altınöz, Ş. T., COŞKUN, A., & Altınöz, A. E. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Psychiatry · doi:10.5505/kpd.2022.13245 · Cited by 1
Hearing the Voice of a Child and Thresholds for Making Legal Decisions
Tustin, D. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-5858-6_15 · Cited by 1
McGregor, K. A. (2015) · IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) · doi:10.7912/c2/1196
Luchtenberg, M. L., Maeckelberghe, E. L. M., Locock, L., Powell, L., & Verhagen, E. A. A. (2016) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2015.1125968
Sam (9 jaar) wil niet in dagbehandeling
Hein, I. M., Troost, P. W., & Lindauer, R. (2016) · Kind & Adolescent Praktijk · doi:10.1007/s12454-016-004-4
Self-citationRethinking informed consent in pediatric research: a time for regulatory policy change?
Raphael, J. L., & Wong, S. L. (2018) · Pediatric Research · doi:10.1038/s41390-018-0151-4
The Narrative Coherence Standard and Child Patients’ Capacity to Consent
Leung, G.-K. (2020) · AJOB Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/21507740.2019.1704933
Adjei, G. O., Laar, A. K., Kurtzhals, J. A. L., & Goka, B. Q. (2020) · Clinical Ethics · doi:10.1177/1477750920958570
Bird, M. A. (2020) · ERA: Education and Research Archive (University of Alberta) · doi:10.7939/r3-pyr8-bc53
Ethical Issues Affecting the Healthcare of Minor Adolescents and Their Participation in Research
Michaud, P. (2021) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470015902.a0029135
Case 27-2021: A 16-Year-Old Boy Seeking Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prophylaxis
Neilan, A. M., Valentine, S. S., & Knopf, A. (2021) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmcpc1909626
Berufsethik und Patientenrechte in der Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und -psychotherapie
Lehndorfer, P., & Plener, P. L. (2021) · Springer Reference Medizin · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-49289-5_87-1
Psychosocial and Ethical Aspects of Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation in Children and Adults
Moravek, M. B., Nahata, L., Hughes‐Hogan, L., Weidenbaum, E. M., & Quinn, G. P. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-823344-3.00019-4
Advocate for children receiving medical care: A study on pediatric care and children’s rights
Tanaka, K., Tsujii, H., Itoh, A., & Hirahara, K. (2023) · International Journal of Healthcare · doi:10.5430/ijh.v9n2p1
ELSI challenges with children in Translational Medicine
Casati, S., & Ellul, B. (2024) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1002550
Taylor, R. E. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108680158.009
Ethical Issues in the Care of Transgender Youth
Roque, R. A., & Gentry, K. R. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/med/9780197655979.003.0030
Berufsethik und Patientenrechte in der Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und -psychotherapie
Lehndorfer, P., & Plener, P. L. (2024) · Springer Reference Medizin · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-66744-6_87
Readability of assent forms used in research with children
Papera, T. D. S., Lima, F. F. D. S., Depianti, J. R. B., de Souza, T. V., Ribeiro, A. M., & Cabral, I. E. (2024) · Revista Bioética · doi:10.1590/1983-803420243757en
Leiturabilidade de termos de assentimento utilizados em pesquisas com crianças
Papera, T. D. S., Lima, F. F. D. S., Depianti, J. R. B., de Souza, T. V., Ribeiro, A. M., & Cabral, I. E. (2024) · Revista Bioética · doi:10.1590/1983-803420243757pt
Lecturabilidad de los formularios de autorización utilizados en estudios con niños
Papera, T. D. S., Lima, F. F. D. S., Depianti, J. R. B., de Souza, T. V., Ribeiro, A. M., & Cabral, I. E. (2024) · Revista Bioética · doi:10.1590/1983-803420243757es
Balter, A.-S., Moloney, M., Ma, C., Lee, A., Pierre, S., Parkes, S., Pulat, D., Racine, N. M., & Andrade, B. F. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0319398 · Cited by 2
Kent, J. R., Ortega, M. V. P., & Raiji, M. T. (2025) · Difficult decisions in surgery: an evidence-based approach · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-80468-7_43
Cavve, B. S., Byrne, M. L., & Moore, J. K. (2025) · Psychoneuroendocrinology · doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2025.107555
Assessing comprehension of informed consent in abortion research
Watson, K., Grossman, D., Ehrenreich, K., Biggs, M. A., & Ralph, L. J. (2025) · Contraception · doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2025.111051
Reetz, J. E., Richter, G., Borzikowsky, C., Glinicke, C., Darabaneanu, S., & Buyx, A. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14998835
Tanaka, K., Hayakawa, M., Mori, M., Maeda, N., Nagata, M., & Horibe, K. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26587659
Reetz, J. E., Richter, G., Borzikowsky, C., Glinicke, C., Darabaneanu, S., & Buyx, A. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14998838
Reetz, J. E., Richter, G., Borzikowsky, C., Glinicke, C., Darabaneanu, S., & Buyx, A. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14998841
Asentimiento informado en endoscopia pediátrica: una pieza ética pendiente en la práctica diaria
Gallardo-Luna, M. S., Castañeda-Ortíz, R. A., Sosa-Martínez, R., Maldonado-Colín, G., & González, H. F. N. (2026) · Revista de Gastroenterología de México · doi:10.1016/j.rgmx.2026.04.010
Navigating Consent and Confidentiality in Adolescent Substance Use Treatment
Alam, S., & Kaliamurthy, S. (2026) · Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.chc.2026.05.009
John-Stewart, G. C., Dyer, J., Jiang, W., Badia, J., Agot, K. E., Njuguna, I. N., Kibugi, J., Beima‐Sofie, K., Shah, S., & Kohler, P. (2026) · AIDS · doi:10.1097/qad.0000000000004638
Haba, N., Kreniske, P., Isenberg, H. A., Nalugoda, F. K., Ott, M. A., Lutalo, T., Nakyanjo, N., Ddaaki, W. G., Isabirye, D., Nakubulwa, R., et al. (2026) · AJOB Empirical Bioethics · doi:10.1080/23294515.2026.2741044
Metadata
- Authors
- Hein, I. M., Troost, P. W., Lindeboom, R., Benninga, M. A., Zwaan, C. M., van Goudoever, J. B., & Lindauer, R. J. L.
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- Department of Pediatrics, Emma Children’s Hospital, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands5Department of Pediatrics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Corresponding author
- Hein, Irma M.
- Venue
- JAMA Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2014-12-01
- Volume
- 168
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1147
- ISSN
- 1072-4710 (ISSN-L)
- 2168-6203
- OpenAlex
- W2027083136
- Cited by
- 148
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 10.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
- Keywords
- capacity to consent, children's participation in research, informed consent, competency assessment instrument, inter-rater reliability, criterion validity, children and adolescents, clinical research
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Age Factors, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Prospective Studies, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Mental Competency, Comprehension, Biomedical Research, Informed Consent By Minors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
