Can or Should CAP Be Applied to Child Research Subjects?: A Comment on Kim and Appelbaum
Behavioral Science Law, Vol. 24, pp. 479-484, 2006
2012
- 536Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Paper Description
As part of a symposium on Capacity to Consent, this Comment explores the use of CAP - a proposed instrument to measure capacity to appoint a proxy - with child research subjects. As with mentally disordered adults, there is a need for special protection of child subjects in research, especially nontherapeutic research or that involving more than minimal risk. The current federal regulations provide inconsistent protection because they defer to state law regarding minors' legal rights. Model codes and professional guidelines are similarly lacking, where they require "assent" from minor subjects who are capable of giving it, but do not respect a refusal of assent in many instances. Young children who are incapable of informed consent (as a matter of fact or law) may well possess the capacity to choose a proxy-decision-maker. Applying the concept of CAP to children and adolescents may provide a valuable alternative to current extremes of giving one or both parent(s) the power to "volunteer" their child as a research subject or requiring a child to prove to an IRB or a court his capacity for informed consent. The ability to choose a proxy may provide greater protection for the child, especially where the research can be done without the child's subject's assent but not without the proxy's consent.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know