The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Meta-Analysis of Ethics Instruction Effectiveness in the Sciences
Open accessAbstract
Scholars have proposed a number of courses and programs intended to improve the ethical behavior of scientists in an attempt to maintain the integrity of the scientific enterprise. In the present study, we conducted a quantitative meta-analysis based on 26 previous ethics program evaluation efforts, and the results showed that the overall effectiveness of ethics instruction was modest. The effects of ethics instruction, however, were related to a number of instructional program factors, such as course content and delivery methods, in addition to factors of the evaluation study itself, such as the field of investigator and criterion measure utilized. An examination of the characteristics contributing to the relative effectiveness of instructional programs revealed that more successful programs were conducted as seminars separate from the standard curricula rather than being embedded in existing courses. Furthermore, more successful programs were case-based, interactive and allowed participants to learn and practice the application of real-world ethical decision-making skills. The implications of these findings for future course development and evaluation are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(1990) · Computers, Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,269
(1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,252
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.
Haidt, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814 · Cited by 8,048
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Kolodner, J. L. (2005) · The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816833.015 · Cited by 4,247
Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An Issue-Contingent Model
Jones, T. M. (1991) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258867 · Cited by 4,135
Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model
Trevino, L. K. (1986) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258313 · Cited by 3,410
TRANSFER OF TRAINING: A REVIEW AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
BALDWIN, T. T., & FORD, J. K. (1988) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00632.x · Cited by 3,307
Cited by
Responsible Conduct of Research
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197547090.001.0001 · Cited by 224
Metadata
- Authors
- Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D.
- Venue
- Ethics & Behavior
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-09-16
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 379-402
- ISSN
- 1050-8422 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7019
- OpenAlex
- W2068512059
- Cited by
- 262
- References
- 66
- FWCI
- 2.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Meta-Analysis of Ethics Instruction Effectiveness in the Sciences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10508420903035380
- The paper
- Antes, A. L., Murphy, S. T., Waples, E. P., Mumford, M. D., Brown, R. P., Connelly, S., & Devenport, L. D. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of Ethics Instruction Effectiveness in the Sciences. Ethics & Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903035380
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
