See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/7938684

Ethical Issues in Couple and Family Research

Article  in  Journal of Family Psychology · April 2005

DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.157 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
29 1,417

8 authors, including:

Gayla Margolin Elana Gordis

University of Southern California University at Albany, The State University of New York
175 PUBLICATIONS   7,722 CITATIONS    46 PUBLICATIONS   3,620 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Michelle C. Ramos
California State University, Fullerton
17 PUBLICATIONS   347 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Couple Mobile Sensing Project View project

USC Family Studies Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michelle C. Ramos on 27 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Family Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association
2005, Vol. 19, No. 1, 157–167 0893-3200/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.157

Ethical Issues in Couple and Family Research

Gayla Margolin, Deborah Chien, Pamella H. Oliver
Sarah E. Duman, Angèle Fauchier, and California State University, Fullerton
Elana B. Gordis
University of Southern California

Michelle C. Ramos and Katrina A. Vickerman

University of Southern California

Federal regulations, ethical standards, and state laws governing ethics do not adequately
address important issues in couple and family research. Including multiple family members,
particularly dependent minors, in research requires the special application of fundamental
ethical issues, such as confidentiality, privacy, and informed consent. The sensitive, com
mingled nature of couple and family information necessitates clear policies about data
ownership and disclosure. Researchers need to have respect for the family as a unit and to
evaluate benefits versus harms for the family as well as for individuals. This article highlights
areas of potential concern and ambiguity related to abuse reporting and Certificates of
Confidentiality and also addresses ethical issues with observational data, intervention studies,
longitudinal designs, and computer-assisted research.

Keywords: ethics, couple and family research, confidentiality, privacy, Certificates of

Confidentiality, informed consent

Couple and family research presents unique challenges in
terms of interpretation and application of ethical principles
to psychosocial research. As with all psychosocial research,
the principal, intertwined objectives are to protect the well-
being of participants and to produce scientifically valid
research. Ethical standards and guidelines, written with re-
spect to individual research participants, sometimes prove
incomplete when applied in the fundamentally different
context of enrolling multiple family members. In all re-
search, ethical conduct requires minimizing research risks
and demonstrating a favorable balance of benefits over
harms (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
[U.S. DHHS], 2001). In marital and family research, re-
searchers must evaluate benefits versus harms for the family
Gayla Margolin, Deborah Chien, Sarah E. Duman, Angèle
Fauchier, Elana B. Gordis, Michelle C. Ramos, and Katrina A.
Vickerman, Department of Psychology, University of Southern
California; Pamella H. Oliver, Department of Child and Adoles-
cent Studies, California State University, Fullerton.
Preparation of this article was supported in part by a grant from
the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, National Institute of
Child and Human Development Grant K23HD041428, and Na-
tional Institute of Mental Health Grant 1F31 MH067303-01. Order
of authorship beyond the first author is alphabetical. We thank
Andrew Christensen and Susan Rose for comments on a draft of
this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Gayla Margolin, Department of Psychology, SGM 930, University
of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1061. E-mail:
margolin@usc.edu
as a unit, for all individual family members who are partic-
ipating, and perhaps even for family members who are not
participating. In addition to perceiving different benefits and
risks to participation, family members may not have the
same thresholds for risk. Moreover, the concept of risks to
family relationships needs to be distinguished from risks to
individuals.
Although we operate in a climate of rapidly changing
guidelines and laws protecting human participants, the fun-
damental principles guiding our current policies are not
new. The Belmont report (National Commission for the
Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behav-
ioral Research, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, 1979) identified the basic ethical principles under-
lying biomedical and behavioral research as respect for
persons, beneficence, and justice. Federal regulations codify
the application of the Belmont principles in what is known
as “The Common Rule” (U.S. DHHS, 2001) and mandate
responsibility for protection of the rights and safety of
research participants to Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).
A recent addition to the federal regulations is the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) pri-
vacy regulation (U.S. DHHS, 2003). Although many couple
and family investigators may already have followed princi-
ples consistent with this law, HIPAA now requires investi-
gators to justify their use of protected health information
more carefully. For example, when recruiting research par-
ticipants on the basis of their use of health services in
covered entities, investigators often need to carefully justify
initial access to protected health information in order to

157
158 MARGOLIN ET AL.
protect patients’ rights to confidentiality (M. Hurlbutt, per-
sonal communication, February 4, 2004).
Conflicts sometimes arise among the federal regulations,
state laws, and professional standards, that is, the “Ethical
Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” of the
American Psychological Association (APA; 2002). Gener-
ally the HIPAA Privacy Rule overrides state laws, but state
law on child abuse is an exception to HIPAA as well as an
exception to APA ethical standards for maintaining confi-
dentiality. Research conducted with Certificates of Confi-
dentiality (National Institutes of Health, 2003), a mecha-
nism to protect investigators from compelled disclosures of
private information, may be used to avoid state reporting
requirements, but that use of certificates may not be ethi-
cally or morally defensible. Tensions between ethical,
moral, and legal considerations that can occur in any re-
search are more complicated in family research, where
investigators face the possibility of competing interests
among family members regarding safety, confidentiality,
and privacy.
This article highlights important ethical dilemmas that
arise in couple and family research. Our basic assumption is
that in couple and family research, we must consider the
application of ethical regulations, standards, and laws from
a systemic level. Such consideration means having respect
for the autonomy of the family unit as well as for the
separate individuals, recognizing family members’ impact
on one another, and appreciating that participation in re-
search is only one event within a continuously unfolding
history of the family. In this article, we describe how couple
and family research requires special application of funda-
mental ethical issues, such as confidentiality, privacy, and
informed consent. We also examine ethical considerations
in reporting abuse and using Certificates of Confidentiality,
and in specific research designs and methodologies com-
monly used in couple and family research, such as direct
observation, intervention studies, and longitudinal designs,
as well as newer computer-assisted technologies.
Special Applications Regarding Fundamental Ethical
Issues
Privacy and Confidentiality
Respect for privacy and confidentiality is a fundamental
concern in ethical research with human participants. Pri-
vacy, a legal as well as a moral and ethical consideration, is
the right to determine the extent and circumstances under
which individuals divulge or receive personal information,
including behavior, attitudes, and details of their lives
(Folkman, 2000; Melton, 1992; Sieber, 2001). Whereas
privacy relates to the investigator’s direct communications
with the participant, confidentiality concerns the extent to
which researchers control the access of others to partici-
pants’ private information. In couple and family research,
issues of privacy and confidentiality are especially complex.
Simply by virtue of family members’ entwined identities,
one person’s disclosure of personal information reveals
information about other family members (Lefley, 2000).
Moreover, family and couple research directly asks partic-
ipants to divulge personal information about one another.
Privacy and confidentiality relate to questions of access to
psychological test data collected in research. A change in
the most recent APA Ethics Code directs psychologists to
provide test data “pursuant to client/patient release” (APA,
2002, p. 1071), albeit still with regard for the security of test
materials. As Smith (2003) noted, the more relaxed stance
toward releasing test data is in line with HIPAA rights to
disclosure. The APA ethics code makes no explicit parallel
statement about test data collected from research partici-
pants. Similarly, whereas clients hold the right to waive
psychotherapist–patient privilege in legal proceedings, no
clear precedent extends privilege to research participants
(Daniel & Kitchener, 2000), although laws on privilege vary
across states and are subject to change.
Issues regarding ownership and release of data in family
research are complex because of the following types of
questions: First, can one family member request release of
her or his own data if the data include private information
about another family member? For example, a woman
might request release of her research record in which she
reported that her husband was abusing her. Second, can one
family member request release of another family member’s
data or release of mutual data such as videotaped samples of
interaction? For example, a husband may request access to
family interaction videotapes as evidence of the wife’s
inadequacy as a mother. As a general rule, the investigator
needs to consider from the outset what, if any, research data
might be disclosed, to whom, and under what
circumstances.
Discrepancies between regulations about individual
rights to release data and the commingled nature of couple
and family research data create a responsibility for couple
and family researchers to ensure that releasing data does not
jeopardize the interests of another family member. In gen-
eral, the wording of ethical guidelines and federal regula-
tions does not adequately address the issues about disclo-
sure of data involving the privacy of multiple family
members. The APA code allows psychologists to refrain
from releasing test data “to protect a client/patient or others
from substantial harm of misuse or misrepresentation of the
data” (APA, 2002, Standard 9.04), indicating that investi-
gators should consider negative consequences for any fam-
ily member in deciding to release data of another family
member. However, because of ambiguities in ethical codes
and federal regulations about family members’ access to
shared research data, each family researcher needs to set
clear boundaries for her or his own study surrounding
release of any data collected and communicate these bound-
aries to all family members.
Sensitive Information
Issues of privacy and confidentiality intersect with an
appreciation for sensitive information, which the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) defines as relating to sexual
attitudes, preferences, or practices; use of alcohol, drugs, or
other addictive products; illegal conduct; or psychological
 SPECIAL ISSUE: ETHICS IN COUPLE AND FAMILY RESEARCH
well-being and mental health. It is information that, if
released, might be damaging to a person’s financial stand-
ing, employability, or reputation, or might lead to stigma-
tization (NIH, 2003). Even without identifiable social and
legal ramifications, information could be considered sensi-
tive if the participant experiences distress, embarrassment,
or shame when providing the information in the research
setting. Perceptions of sensitive information vary across
ethnic groups and geographic locations (Folkman, 2000;
Sieber, 2001), a consideration for multi-site studies. More-
over, members of the same family, particularly from differ-
ent generations, may have different sensitivities even to
seemingly innocuous questions, such as income or educa-
tion level.
Cross-informant data collection, a distinctive and rich
source of information in couple and family research, can
optimize the reliability and validity of data, particularly on
low base-rate behaviors. However, with such data, one
family member may willingly share information that an-
other views as too private to disclose. In couple research,
both the husband and wife may report on sensitive topics
such as his and her own and the partner’s extramarital
relationships, marital aggression, or alcohol use. The stan-
dard safeguard for discomfort in revealing sensitive infor-
mation, that participants can choose not to answer any
question without prejudicial consequences, is of limited
applicability with cross-informant data. One spouse would
need to anticipate what is sensitive to the other and choose
to respect the partner’s privacy.
In family research, parents and children often have dif-
ferent protocols and may not know the questions posed to
other family members or even that they are providing in-
formation about one another. Moreover, with age-related
sensitivities, parents and children may not have similar
perspectives on what the other views as private. A child
might disclose a parent’s physical child abuse or substance
abuse without understanding possible consequences. Be-
yond illegal behaviors, asking children certain questions
may be an invasion of the parents’ privacy. Parents’ reports
on children are so common in daily life, for example, with
teachers or doctors, that it is easy to overlook the privacy
rights of children. Yet control over personal information is
important even for young children and certainly for adoles-
cents (Melton, 1992). The situation facing family research-
ers is one in which definitions of sensitive information may
be unique to the individual, but control of access to sensitive
information jointly resides with multiple family members.
Certificates of Confidentiality
Certificates of Confidentiality, issued by the U.S. DHHS,
allow investigators to guard against forced disclosure of
sensitive information provided by identifiable research par-
ticipants (NIH, 2003). Although concerns exist about po-
tential limitations of the Certificates (Melton, 1990; Sieber,
2001), overall, the Certificates are important in protecting
investigators from being compelled to disclose identifying
information about research participants through subpoena or
for any law enforcement or legal proceedings. Researchers
159
(Daniel & Kitchener, 2000; Hoagwood, 1994; Melton,
1990; Runyan, 2000) as well as the NIH (2003) recommend
obtaining a Certificate whenever research involves identifi-
able and sensitive information. Yet, investigators must un-
derstand Certificates’ uses and limitations. After a Certifi-
cate has been obtained, identifiable information still can be
disclosed if (a) the participant wishes to release data volun-
tarily; (b) the researcher voluntarily discloses or reports
communicable diseases, child abuse, or potential of harm to
others; or (c) the researcher releases required information to
the U.S. DHHS for program evaluation or audits of records
(NIH, 2003).
In family research, a Certificate of Confidentiality may
help protect data from being subpoenaed in divorce or child
custody proceedings. However, because a participant has
the right to release her or his own data voluntarily, the
researcher still needs to be aware of possible exploitation of
the data. In situations involving multiple family members as
research participants, no consensus currently exists regard-
ing whose permission would be needed to release couple or
family data. For example, a man might request release of his
data, in which he reported his wife’s alcohol consumption
and mental health problems. If the wife were not a partici-
pant in the study, Certificates would provide no protection
of her privacy (Sieber, 2001). However, if his wife were a
participant, the effectiveness of a Certificate in protecting
her privacy remains unclear, because the release does not
involve information she reported. As yet, no clear legal
ruling exists on Certificate coverage when couples or fam-
ilies are in research and one person’s data contains private
information about the other. Moreover, Certificates do not
provide a means for researchers to withhold minor chil-
dren’s data from their parents (Hoagwood, 1994). Privacy
issues such as these are best handled by clearly detailing the
intended procedures regarding disclosure in the consent
form.
Informed Consent
Informed consent reflects the acknowledgment that indi-
viduals are autonomous agents, capable of deciding whether
to participate (National Commission, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979). In couple and fam-
ily research, we additionally need to consider that the family
functions as a unit, capable of reaching a decision based on
the shared input of family members. For some families,
family decision making is commonplace and comfortable,
whereas for others, it may be a coercive process (Brody,
2001). In couple and family research, the mandate to obtain
voluntary consent, “free of coercion and undue influence”
(National Commission, U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, 1979, Informed Consent section) takes on
a dual meaning—free from pressure by the experimenter or
a third party and free from pressure by another family
member.
Typically, one family member’s interest motivates an
initial inquiry about participating in research, and that per-
son, as conveyer of information about the study, then may
encourage, persuade, or cajole others to participate. When
160 MARGOLIN ET AL.
considerable information is provided to one adult family
member prior to scheduling an initial appointment, the
investigator may wish to have telephone contact with and
provide the same information to the other participating
adults in the family. Researchers need to anticipate, how-
ever, that family members are likely to have different levels
of interest in a study and widely ranging, perhaps even
conflicting, motivations for participating. For example, one
spouse may want to gain knowledge about the family’s
functioning and maybe gain access to psychological ser-
vices, whereas the other spouse may be uncomfortable with
those possibilities.
In reconciling informed consent as an individual and a
group decision, researchers need to consider whether to
conduct consent procedures individually or with all family
members present. A reason to speak to family members
individually, after a group introduction, is to provide a
forum for individuals to express concerns privately. Alter-
natively, a reason to conduct consent procedures with all
family members together, beyond time constraints, is that
family members hear precisely the same information and
benefit from one another’s questions. Following that, offer-
ing the family time to discuss their decision among them-
selves without the experimenter present may be helpful.
This alternative, although risking the possibility of putting
pressure on one family member, communicates respect for
the autonomy of the family.
Regardless of how the investigator structures the consent
process, families’ own decision-making styles and in-
grained family hierarchies are likely to prevail. Despite
investigators’ efforts to protect the rights of each partici-
pant, one adult may play a more dominant role in decisions
about participating. In most families, parents typically bring
about children’s research involvement. Cultural factors, for
example, parental authority and individual autonomy, also
are relevant (Fisher et al., 2002). Families with collectivist
philosophies are likely to base participation on what benefits
the family as a whole, with minimal leeway for individual
dissension, whereas families with individualistic philoso-
phies may grant considerable control to individuals and
refrain from group decision making.
Toward the goal of assuring that participants have suffi-
cient information, investigators may struggle with the ques-
tion of how explicit the language should be in describing the
purpose of the study or the specific criteria for acceptance.
Although descriptions need to be clear and informative, it
may be justifiable to avoid certain details that could com-
promise privacy across family members or raise undue
anxiety, for example, revealing a study’s full purpose as
examining the effects of parental depression on family
processes may inadvertently reveal one person’s disorder to
other family members.
An inherent challenge in the consent process is balancing
sufficient information with comprehensibility. Multi-page
consent forms burdened with template language run counter
to the “ethical intent of informed consent, which is to
communicate clearly and respectfully, to foster trust, com-
prehension, and good decision making, and to ensure that
participation is voluntary” (Sieber & Levine, 2004, p. 25).
Research on this subject has indicated that participants
understand short consent forms better than long ones
(Mann, 1994). Nonetheless, individuals base their decisions
about whether to participate on different bits of information,
which makes it difficult to know what details are unimpor-
tant enough to be excluded. Consumer-friendly audiotape,
videotape, or computer-based presentations are being ex-
plored as ways to enhance participants’ understanding of the
research process (e.g., Dunn et al., 2002) and to circumvent
questions of whether participants actually read the forms.
Regardless of what means are used to convey information in
consent processes, however, investigators should obtain
feedback about what potential participants have understood.
To promote comprehension and active participation in the
consent process by all family members, the investigator
should reiterate key points at a level all family members can
understand and invite questions from all participants at any
point in the protocol. For parents to gain a meaningful
picture of what the child’s participation will involve, inves-
tigators may wish to make instruments and descriptions of
procedures available for parents to peruse. In some cases,
however, parents’ knowledge of specific questions may
compromise the child’s privacy if a parent later asks the
child how she or he answered specific questions. In addi-
tion, certain psychological test materials are protected and,
for the sake of test security, should not be viewed by
parents.
A unique aspect of consent forms for couple and family
research concerns the limits of confidentiality between fam-
ily members. The previously noted ambiguity about data
ownership when data are commingled across family mem-
bers necessitates a clearly stated policy in the consent form
about whether information from one family member will be
shared with other family members. Investigators also can
take concrete steps to deter unwanted breaches of private
information. For example, family members can complete
assessments in separate rooms to promote privacy in a
laboratory setting. For data completed at home, the re-
searcher can give each participant a separate packet of
questionnaires with instructions to seal all completed forms.
Even when researchers have only limited control in physi-
cally ensuring confidentiality among family members, they
can still emphasize the importance of not encroaching on
one another’s privacy and thereby help family members
resist unwanted, probing questions from one another.
Another confidentiality issue in family research is
whether consent procedures should include secondary par-
ticipants, that is, those family members who are not partic-
ipating themselves but whose potentially sensitive informa-
tion is reported by participants. Are nonparticipating family
members considered participants when private information
is requested about them? In a recent case (Amber, 2000), an
adult female participant received a survey, mailed to her
home, that included questions about her father. The father
read the survey, and brought his concerns about privacy to
the NIH, which resulted in a review of human participants
research at the sponsoring university. On the basis of “The
Common Rule,” Botkin (2001) identified two key criteria in
determining whether nonparticipating family members
 SPECIAL ISSUE: ETHICS IN COUPLE AND FAMILY RESEARCH
qualify as participants: whether the nonparticipants are
readily identifiable, and whether the information is indeed
private and not public. Family members generally are not
identifiable without specific identifiers such as names, ad-
dresses, or social security numbers, even if the nature of the
relationship with the identified participant is known.
Whereas age and occupation are public information, phys-
ical and mental health conditions are private information.
Special Issues Regarding Children as Vulnerable
Participants
Much of the current thinking about the ethical conduct of
individual research with children and adolescents (Hoag-
wood, Jensen, & Fisher, 1996; Koocher & Keith-Spiegel,
1990; Stanley & Sieber, 1992) extends to family research.
The impact of research on minors varies dramatically across
developmental stages, particularly in terms of conditions
that might shame or embarrass a child or violate the child’s
privacy (Melton, 1992; Thompson, 1992). According to
federal regulations, approvable research with children gen-
erally cannot involve greater than minimal risk unless the
research offers the possibility of direct benefit (U.S. DHHS,
2001).
Parental Consent and Permission, and Children’s
Assent
Family research requires participating parents to consent
for themselves and to “consent” (i.e., give permission) for
their children’s participation. Additionally, participating
children assent for themselves. As contrasted with research
conducted only with children, family researchers must take
care that parents’ consent on behalf of children is not
motivated by perceived benefits to the parents themselves.
Parental consent and permission gives parents the right to
protect children against undue risk and to avoid unwanted
intrusions on family privacy (Melton, 1999). Children’s
rights to assent or to veto research participation give chil-
dren an active voice in decision making about their partic-
ipation in family research. Children’s dissent can be over-
ruled only if the IRB determines that the research offers the
possibility of direct benefit to the child, generally through a
therapeutic intervention, and that benefit is available only in
the context of the research. Researchers also need to be
careful regarding whether one or both parents’ consent is
required and which adults can legally give consent for a
child’s participation, particularly in situations involving di-
vorce or foster care (Putnam, Liss, & Landsverk, 1996; U.S.
DHHS, 2001, 45 CFR §46.408).
The child’s ability to assent meaningfully to participation
in research depends on the cognitive and emotional maturity
of the child as well as on the nature of the experimental
procedures (American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee
on Bioethics, 1995). Neither federal regulations nor ethical
standards stipulate a specific age for including child assent
procedures, although age 7 and older sometimes is recom-
mended (Putnam et al., 1996; Thompson, 1992). Yet, cog-
nitive capacities for fully informed consent may not develop
161
until mid-adolescence or later (Fisher, 2003). Moreover,
minors of any age may have difficulty with the concept of
free assent, not because of the situation per se, but because
they rarely make such choices and because parents would
already have given permission (Koocher, 1987). Research
shows that even if children understand the purpose of a
study, they do not necessarily believe that they can with-
draw from participation or that their information remains
confidential (Hurley & Underwood, 2002). Pilot tests of
assent procedures can help investigators develop clear,
comprehensible, age-appropriate language.
The law presumes that parents will make decisions in the
children’s best interests but also acknowledges that some
parents, such as those who abuse or neglect their children,
may have conflicting interests or adversarial stances toward
their children. (U.S. DHHS, 2001, §45 CFR 46.408c) In
those cases, IRBs can help determine the appropriate mech-
anism for protecting children. More subtle examples of
parents not acting in the child’s best interests arise when
parents give incorrect information about the child’s mental
or physical health, with the result that participation holds
added risks for that child. Alternatively, sometimes parents
misrepresent the child’s age or grade level to qualify for a
study. Such actions, which at minimum put the child in an
awkward situation, may be revealed only if the child gives
the correct information. Faced with these situations, the
experimenter must carefully consider the consequences to
the child before confronting the parents about the misinfor-
mation and must be particularly cautious if she or he already
has knowledge that these parents use harsh punishment.
Disclosure of Children’s Research Information
An important issue in family research is whether exper-
imenters share information about the child with the parents.
On the one hand, parents may assume that they can view
their child’s data. Not making such information available
may be considered disrespectful, particularly within certain
cultures (Fisher et al., 2002). Additionally, youths may
disclose certain information with the hope that researchers
view their problems as important and help them obtain
assistance. Fisher (2003) found that both adolescents and
their parents prefer a research protocol that asks adoles-
cents’ permission to obtain help with a serious problem such
as drug use or suicide behavior rather than strict policies of
either disclosure or confidentiality. On the other hand, shar-
ing data with parents could be a breach of children’s pri-
vacy, stigmatize the child, or compromise the integrity of
the research by restricting what children are willing to
report. Moreover, even though assessment measures are
useful for identifying characteristics of groups in research,
they may not be valid for making individual diagnoses and
may not have been examined for cultural validity (Fisher et
al., 2002). Thus, caution always is warranted when using
research data to draw clinical conclusions about one partic-
ular child.
Policies about disclosures to parents need to take into
account federal regulations, state laws, and ethical consid-
erations. For data collected in HIPAA-covered entities, par-
162 MARGOLIN ET AL.
ents can access their children’s protected health informa-
tion, with only a few specified exceptions. The ethical
standards of the Society for Research in Child Development
(1996) give a fairly broad responsibility to the researcher:
“When, in the course of research, information comes to the
investigator’s attention that may jeopardize the child’s well-
being, the investigator has a responsibility to discuss the
information with the parents or guardians and with those
experts in the field in order that they may arrange the
necessary assistance for the child” (Principle 9). State laws
and the ethical standards of the APA (2002, Standard 4.05)
mandate disclosures to protect persons from harm. Al-
though they do not explicitly refer to disclosing information
to parents, these mandates seemingly would apply to chil-
dren’s and adolescents’ serious threats of harm to self or
others. Yet, researchers need to make careful, and often
difficult, judgments about whether children’s and adoles-
cents’ acknowledgments of risky activities reach the level of
being life-threatening and thus reportable behaviors. In gen-
eral, family researchers need to establish clear policies with
regard to limits of confidentiality with minors before con-
ducting the protocol with participants. Investigators then
can convey those policies as part of both the consent and
assent procedures.
Reporting Child Abuse
A question that is frequently raised is whether researchers
are mandated to report abuse. States with the broadest
mandate identify the general citizenry as mandated report-
ers, whereas other states enumerate specified lists of report-
ers (Kalichman, 1999; Liss, 1994). States also vary in terms
of whether discretionary reporters have the option of report-
ing abuse. As Liss (1994) pointed out, some states explicitly
include researchers in the definition of psychologist, regard-
less of licensure, whereas other states explicitly exclude
researchers from the practice of psychology.
State requirements for mandated reports also vary accord-
ing to degree of certainty regarding the abuse as well as the
specificity and severity of the abusive behavior (Kalichman,
1999). Investigators should know the specifics of their state
laws and, whenever questions arise, should consult with
their local child protective services to evaluate whether
certain information would be reportable. Moreover, some
harsh behaviors, for example, slapping or shaking, may be
clearly abusive with an infant or young child but may not be
automatically reportable with an adolescent.
Investigators must weigh ethical and moral issues about
reporting suspected abuse, whether or not they are legally
mandated reporters. The researcher’s responsibility to pro-
tect the child overrides the obligation to protect the confi-
dentiality of the child and the parents. Still, researchers may
be troubled by potential negative repercussions for both the
child and parents, such as the child’s emotional distress,
further abuse of the child as punishment for the disclosure,
separation from the parents due to placement of the child or
arrest of the parent, disruption of the marital or parent– child
relationship, or stigmatization of the family (Putnam et al.,
1996). Certain types of research pose an inherent dilemma
in that research participation, as an altruistic act, might lead
to negative consequences such as criminal charges or child
protection proceedings (Melton, 1990). Nonetheless, de-
spite concerns about potential harms to parents or the family
as a whole, current legal, ethical, and social policies prior-
itize protection of the child.
Because research follows a standardized protocol, family
researchers generally can anticipate the nature and scope of
possible disclosures and whether the protocol will elicit
definite or probable evidence of abuse. Going outside the
basic research protocol to explore a suspicion of abuse may
represent a breach of the research contract unless explicitly
stated as a possibility in the consent form. For certain
populations, such as children already identified as abused by
social service departments, researchers can ask questions
about abuse without necessarily needing to make a further
report, though they may need to report new allegations of
abuse. For participants who have not already been identified
for abuse, investigators need to think carefully about
whether the range of responses to any part of the protocol
reaches what Kalichman (1999) describes as a “reporting
threshold.” Reaching this threshold could mean an auto-
matic abuse report or, more likely, could signal the need for
a standardized auxiliary protocol for further assessing
abuse. For questions related to abuse collected through
questionnaires or participants’ directly inputted computer
responses, investigators may need to examine answers (or
have the computer flag specific items) to determine whether
an auxiliary protocol is needed before ending the research
session.
Some studies may not require information about report-
able abusive behaviors per se but can assess minor aggres-
sive behaviors or harsh punishment as a proxy for abuse. In
these studies, the researcher can truncate the assessment of
abuse so that the scope of information obtained does not
reach the threshold for required reporting. With this ap-
proach, researchers can inform participants of the excep-
tions to confidentiality but assure them that responding to
the standardized protocol will not elicit information about
reportable behavior.
Family researchers also need to consider that even pro-
tocols on topics unrelated to child abuse may stimulate a
family member to spontaneously divulge information about
abuse. When a participant starts to go outside of protocol,
the investigator may wish to immediately remind that per-
son of the exceptions to confidentiality. Hence, every con-
sent form for any type of couple or family research must
state the limits on confidentiality regarding mandated re-
porting of child or elder abuse.
Certificates of Confidentiality as They Relate to
Abuse Reporting
The question of whether Certificates of Confidentiality
override state child abuse reporting mandates has received
considerable attention in the literature. The prevailing opin-
ion indicates that legally the federal Certificates of Confi-
dentiality do preempt state laws mandating child abuse
reporting (Hoagwood, 1994; Melton, 1990; Wolf, Zandecki,
 SPECIAL ISSUE: ETHICS IN COUPLE AND FAMILY RESEARCH
& Lo, 2004). Still, many researchers and legal experts do
not advocate ignoring reporting mandates; they focus in-
stead on the moral and ethical considerations of voluntarily
reporting abuse to protect children from current or imminent
danger, albeit not necessarily reporting past abuse (Daniel &
Kitchener, 2000; Hoagwood, 1994; Kotch, 2000; Putnam et
al., 1996). Moreover, certain institutes at the U.S. DHHS
may not grant Certificates unless the researcher plans to
report situations in which the child is in current danger.
Likewise, despite use of Certificates, some IRBs require
language in the consent form that complies with state man-
dated reporting laws (Wolf et al., 2004). Future legislative
amendments or litigation to establish case law may further
clarify the use of Certificates with respect to child abuse
reports (Melton, 1990; Runyan, 2000). One important and
very clear requirement is that an investigator who believes
that she or he might voluntarily report child abuse must state
this exception to confidentiality as part of the Certificate
application and in the consent form (NIH, 2003).
By protecting the investigator from automatic, involun-
tary disclosure, Certificates give the investigator more dis-
cretion about whether and under what circumstances to
report suspected abuse. This protection delivers greater op-
portunity to conduct valid, generalizable child maltreatment
research, but the discretion is accompanied by increased
gravity in the ethical obligation to consider potential harms
to individual children and families. In some research, in-
forming participants of the mandated reporting responsibil-
ity may lead to invalid data or may introduce a sampling
bias by discouraging participation (Putnam et al., 1996).
These methodological issues may best be met by collecting
anonymous data or promising confidentiality. Alternatively,
faced with the concerns associated with using Certificates to
override mandated state child abuse reporting laws, some
researchers request a letter of confidentiality from the state
agency that governs abuse reports (Sieber, 1994). In gen-
eral, data collected in research may be incomplete in terms
of information needed to make difficult decisions about
protecting a child from imminent harm. Deciding how to
proceed and whether to obtain more information requires
both advance planning, so that steps are already built into
the protocol, and rigorous, sustained oversight by the re-
searcher in charge. If investigators decide certain behaviors
are not reportable or they decide to use Certificates to
protect against compelled disclosure, they may wish to
provide psychoeducational materials, referrals to parenting
classes, or therapy referrals to benefit participating families
(Daniel & Kitchener, 2000; Sieber, 2001).
Ethical Issues Pertaining to Specific Research
Designs and Methodologies
Observational Data Collection
Observational methods are rich sources of data in couple
and family research but pose ethical considerations regard-
ing possible reactivity, protection of privacy, and data sen-
sitivity. Participant observation procedures, in which one
family member observes and reports on interactions with
163
other family members, may be intrusive and can lead to
discomfort in those being observed, particularly if the be-
haviors reported on are perceived as private. There also can
be a positive or negative impact on the observer who obtains
new relationship information. In general, we know little
about the risks or benefits when family members intention-
ally observe one another and how the impact of these
procedures differs depending on whether or not the person
knows that her or his behavior is being observed and re-
ported to a researcher.
Videotaped observational data involve unique challenges
in terms of the protection of privacy. Because personal
identifiers cannot be physically separated from the data,
anyone who watches the videotape may recognize the par-
ticipants. Technologies available to scramble facial features
are rarely used because facial expressions are of interest to
most investigators. Observed interactions also pose chal-
lenges in terms of the sensitivity of the data. When family
members engage in a videotaped discussion, no one partic-
ipant controls the flow of information. Thus, sensitive in-
formation may be exposed in unanticipated ways. In Brad-
bury’s (1994) study on the impact of videotaped couple
discussions, spouses’ reactions ranged from viewing the
discussion as a valuable experience to discomfort at having
personal problems exposed to others. Only a small percent-
age of participants, not necessarily the most maritally dis-
tressed, expressed regret about having had the discussion or
concern about possible consequences. For all observational
methodologies, including participant observation and vid-
eotaped discussions, post-collection debriefings and
follow-up telephone calls are useful to assess the impact of
the procedures.
Obtaining fully informed consent in observational re-
search poses some difficulties. Investigators may believe
that revealing the specific behaviors of interest will con-
strain the participants from behaving naturalistically. In
addition, investigators also may not always know in ad-
vance how the videotaped data will be examined. Prelimi-
nary findings often influence later decisions about what
behaviors to code, and secondary analyses are common with
videotaped data.
Secure data storage and making information accessible
only to authorized persons is important in all research but
especially important in videotape-recorded observational
research. Investigators should provide training on confiden-
tiality and privacy to all personnel who have access to these
data and require that they read and sign statements about
data security and privacy. Consent procedures should
clearly state who will have access to videotapes (e.g., who
will be coding the tapes, whether tapes will be used in
classrooms or professional presentations). For further clar-
ification, consent forms can include options for participants
to permit their tapes to be used for some but not all of these
purposes. To grant participants more control, investigators
can give them the option to veto certain topics from being
discussed, and, following the discussion, to erase their vid-
eotape before anyone sees it.
164 MARGOLIN ET AL.
Intervention Research
Intervention research, compared with other types of re-
search, is more likely to offer couples and families the
prospect of direct benefits but also presents additional risks.
Participants in intervention studies are seeking services,
which they may not receive or which may prove ineffective.
The higher stakes associated with intervention research and
the complexities of working with multiple family members
make issues of eligibility, treatment focus, and confidenti-
ality particularly challenging.
Disagreement between family members over the desire to
enroll in treatment, presenting problems, and therapy goals
poses a particular dilemma for treatment researchers in
terms of participant eligibility. In couple therapy, the ex-
perimental treatment may coincide more with one partner’s
objectives than another’s. In family therapy with a focus on
child problems, the issues are even more pronounced, as
investigators typically study treatments for more specific
problems. Hawley and Weisz (2003) found that in commu-
nity clinics, children, parents, and therapists agreed on key
treatment problems less than one fourth of the time. Their
conflicting opinions about what is wrong may indicate fun-
damentally different treatment approaches or disagreements
about whether the child even should be in the study. Ado-
lescents, in particular, are unlikely to agree with parents on
treatment goals (Koocher, 2003). Parents can override chil-
dren’s lack of assent if the study is the only avenue for the
child to receive beneficial treatment, yet a child who is
vehemently opposed may not benefit from the intervention
and may essentially remain untreated. Moreover, different
family members may have different reasons for articulating
presenting problems. If being in the study involves incen-
tives (e.g., compensation for assessments), one family mem-
ber may exaggerate concerns pertinent to the appropriate
disorder to be included in the study and downplay other
complaints that need attention.
Issues discussed earlier regarding consent are particularly
salient in treatment research because of the tendency of
family members to disagree about problems, participants’
emotionally vulnerable state, their need for services, and
their desire for direct benefits. Researchers obviously need
to take steps to ensure that all involved family members
consent to treatment without coercion and have been fully
informed. These steps include providing information about
the experimental nature of treatment, the course of therapy,
and available treatment alternatives (see APA, 2002, Sec-
tions 8.02 and 10.01, for details). Nonetheless, careful ex-
planations do not mean participants actually understand the
procedures, particularly when they are in an anxious, dis-
tressed state. Kodish et al. (2004) found that approximately
50% of parents did not understand the concept of random-
ization in a medical clinical trial for their children, with lack
of understanding particularly high in racial minority and
low socioeconomic status families. Thus, researchers may
need additional strategies to make informed consent truly
informed, particularly when participants are making deci-
sions that affect other family members.
Issues around eligibility and treatment goals loom espe-
cially large as intervention research focuses more on real-
world applications and researchers include families with
multiple needs. Researchers must consider whether other
treatments (e.g., medication, support groups) can occur dur-
ing the study treatment and follow-up periods and have
plans for families needing additional services when the
research protocol ends (Hoagwood, 2003). Researchers
must also evaluate what kinds of control conditions are
ethical when families have urgent needs. The ethical stance
generally seems to be against withholding treatment for
participants with identifiable treatment needs when an ef-
fective treatment exists (Baucom, Hahlweg, & Kuschel,
2003; Hoagwood, 2003). Withholding treatment is espe-
cially problematic in studies involving children, given that
intervention may be needed at a specific developmental
stage, and even seemingly minor disorders may have dele-
terious effects. Comparing an experimental treatment to
treatment as usual is an alternative that avoids leaving
participants without treatment.
Issues regarding confidentiality overlap with those dis-
cussed earlier, but they are particularly salient in treatment
research because family members may provide important
private information during continuing assessments and in-
tervention. Treatment participants form an ongoing relation-
ship with the therapist and thus may be more likely than
other research participants to reveal sensitive information
that affects other family members, that indicates risk for
harm, or that is relevant to diagnosis or to the course of
treatment. For example, distressed spouses in treatment may
privately reveal information about infidelity or plans to
leave the marriage. Information that a child reveals may
pose a dilemma to a therapist who is trying to balance
maintaining a child’s privacy and trust with informing par-
ents of dangerous behaviors. Consistent with ethical clinical
practice (e.g., Margolin, 1982), establishing ground rules
with all family members regarding what would need to be
shared versus what can be kept private can help resolve
some of the dilemmas faced by the treatment researcher.
Longitudinal Research
In longitudinal research, the nature of the relationship
between the participants and the researcher poses unique
challenges. Previously discussed dilemmas surrounding dis-
closure are intensified because of the collaborative nature of
the relationship between researchers and participants and
because participants have contributed so much to the study.
Participants may expect more from the researchers and may
ask researchers for feedback from their assessments. Re-
searchers, moreover, may have information, through re-
peated assessments, that certain family problems are indeed
worsening. Thus, longitudinal researchers face important
decisions about whether to disclose information that could
benefit the family but change the natural course of the
phenomenon under study. To address this dilemma, re-
searchers could routinely provide the participant family
with a referral list at each assessment, include an item in the
protocol on which participants indicate whether they have
concerns that might warrant a referral, or conclude each
 SPECIAL ISSUE: ETHICS IN COUPLE AND FAMILY RESEARCH
assessment by asking if participants would like a follow-up
call during the next week to discuss any concerns and, if
appropriate, make a referral during that call.
Another consideration in longitudinal research is the
changing nature of the research resulting from changes in
the protocol, the family’s developmental stage, or member-
ship in the defined family following divorce and remarriage.
Researchers need to decide who will and will not be in-
cluded in the study, and whether all family members in-
cluded will be seen together. For instance, it may be un-
comfortable for previously married parents to be in the same
room for assessments or informed consent procedures. Ini-
tially, children may be unable to provide any data indepen-
dently and may prefer to have the parent in the room for
experimental procedures. As they grow older, the confiden-
tiality of their data from the parents needs to be emphasized.
Researchers must articulate confidentiality agreements be-
tween family members at each assessment, whether they
change or remain the same. In addition, the consent and
assent procedures need to be adapted across assessments to
reflect the children’s changing cognitive abilities and the
likelihood that potential risks for children’s participation
may change (Thompson, 1992). Consent is thus an ongoing
process to be fully addressed at each assessment, with an
explicit focus on what is different from previous
assessments.
In longitudinal research, investigators and their assistants
need to be particularly careful regarding issues of confiden-
tiality and coercion. Because of the necessity of recontact-
ing families across multiple assessments and storing data for
many years, each new member of the research team needs to
be systematically trained to handle identifiers and maintain
confidentiality. Moreover, because collecting longitudinal
data is very time consuming and dependent on the continued
participation of a group of people, researchers must be
especially diligent about avoiding coercion. In particular,
investigators and parents must respect children’s and ado-
lescents’ desire for autonomy and guard against coercing
minors into continued participation as part of the family
unit.
Internet and Computer-Assisted Research
Internet research is gaining popularity because of the ease
and efficiency of data collection. Two key ethical issues of
Internet research are difficulties in safeguarding partici-
pants’ privacy and management of possible crises.
Computer-assisted technologies may elicit more accurate
reporting of high-risk behaviors (Turner et al., 1998) but
also make it more difficult to protect sensitive data. Security
breaches in couple and family Internet research can occur if
family members share one e-mail account or are able to
access one another’s e-mails on a shared computer (Frankel
& Siang, 1999). For these reasons, it is important to limit
sensitive information included in e-mails and to avoid using
cookies to store private information entered into a Web page
(Mathy, Kerr, & Haydin, 2003).
In general, the anonymity of computer-assisted technol-
ogies, either via the Internet or on computer-based ques-
165
tionnaires in laboratories, may elicit highly sensitive infor-
mation, such as suicidal ideation, threats to others, or child
abuse information. Forced choice, rather than open-ended
questions, may minimize receipt of such information, but
must be balanced against the richness of open-ended qual-
itative data (Michalak & Szabo, 1998). With Internet data,
the investigator needs to determine whether information
about possible danger is authentic, whether it is detailed
enough to warrant a response, and whether a response is
feasible given the limited knowledge of the participants’
personal information (Stern, 2003). Black and Ponirakis
(2000) recommend face-to-face debriefing following
laboratory-based computer-assisted technologies because
researchers may be unaware of whether participants have
strong reactions to a computer-assisted protocol. Internet
researchers likewise might offer an option for a telephone
debriefing. In general, couple and family researchers who
conduct computer-assisted or Internet research need plans
for evaluating and responding to important disclosures as
well as the emotional impact of their procedures.
Conclusion
Couple and family investigators face the unique chal-
lenge of balancing research benefits and harms for multiple
family members in addition to the more common challenge
of balancing protections for individual research participants
with benefits to society through valid research. Despite
extensive federal regulations and revised professional stan-
dards, ethical issues confronting couple and family re-
searchers remain incompletely addressed. The best guid-
ance may come from other researchers in the field; toward
this end, we encourage couple and family researchers to
include information in their publications about ethical issues
they have encountered in their studies. Pertinent informa-
tion includes descriptions of risk reduction strategies, meth-
ods to prevent breaches of confidentiality, and strategies to
identify and reduce emotional distress. In planning studies,
investigators are likely to benefit from seeking the guidance
of families, the ultimate consumers of research, on the
intrusiveness, risk, and overall ethical soundness of their
research (Fisher, 2003; Hoagwood, 2003). In addition, re-
search on enhancing consent procedures and on the positive
and negative effects of participation would help researchers
better understand the impact of their research protocols on
family members.
With increasingly sophisticated questions and methods,
couple and family research can generate meaningful an-
swers to significant societal issues. With the opportunity
and privilege to address these questions comes the respon-
sibility to be informed about ethical issues, to monitor the
impact of research procedures, and to update strategies for
ethical conduct. Collective knowledge and vigilance within
the field about ethical conduct are crucial for maintaining
the trust of participants, the public, academic institutions,
and funding agencies and thus ultimately for sustaining
couple and family research.
166 MARGOLIN ET AL.
References
Amber, D. (2000). Case at VCU brings ethics to forefront. The
Scientist, 14(9), 1.
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics.
(1995). Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in
pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 95, 314 –317.
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of
psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57,
1060 –1073.
Baucom, D. H., Hahlweg, K., & Kuschel, A. (2003). Are waiting-
list control groups needed in future marital therapy outcome
research? Behavior Therapy, 34, 179 –188.
Black, M. M., & Ponirakis, A. (2000). Computer-administered
interviews with children about maltreatment: Methodological,
developmental, and ethical issues. Journal of Interpersonal Vi-
olence, 15, 682– 695.
Botkin, J. R. (2001). Protecting the privacy of family members in
survey and pedigree research. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 285, 207–211.
Bradbury, T. N. (1994). Unintended effects of marital research on
marital relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 187–201.
Brody, B. A. (2001). Making informed consent meaningful. IRB:
A review of human subjects research, 23, 1–5.
Daniel, P. A., & Kitchener, K. S. (2000). Issues of confidentiality.
In K. S. Kitchener (Ed.), Foundations of ethical practice, re-
search, and teaching in psychology (pp. 77–110). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Dunn, L. B., Lindamer, L. A., Palmer, B. W., Golshan, S., Schnei-
derman, L. J., & Jeste, D. V. (2002). Understanding of research
consent in middle-aged and elderly patients with psychotic dis-
order. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 10, 142–150.
Fisher, C. B. (2003). Adolescent and parent perspectives on ethical
issues in youth drug use and suicide survey research. Ethics and
Behavior, 13, 303–332.
Fisher, C. B., Hoagwood, K., Boyce, C., Duster, T., Frank, D. A.,
Grisso, T., et al. (2002). Research ethics for mental health sci-
ence involving ethnic minority children and youths. American
Psychologist, 57, 1024 –1040.
Folkman, S. (2000). Privacy and confidentiality. In B. D. Sales &
S. Folkman (Eds.), Ethics in research with human partici-
pants (pp. 49 –57). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Frankel, M. S., & Siang, S. (1999). Ethical and legal aspects of
human subjects research on the Internet. Washington, DC:
American Association for the Advancement of Science. Re-
trieved December 10, 2003 from http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/
sfrl/projects/intres/main.htm
Hawley, K. M., & Weisz, J. R. (2003). Child, parent, and therapist
(dis)agreement on target problems in outpatient therapy: The
therapist’s dilemma and its implication. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 71, 62–70.
Hoagwood, K. (1994). The Certificate of Confidentiality at the
National Institute of Mental Health: Discretionary consideration
in its applicability in research on child and adolescent mental
disorders. Ethics & Behavior, 4, 123–131.
Hoagwood, K. (2003). Ethical issues in child and adolescent
psychosocial treatment research. In A. E. Kazdin & J. R. Weisz
(Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adoles-
cents (pp. 60 –75). New York: Guilford Press.
Hoagwood, K., Jensen, P. S., & Fisher, C. B. (1996). Ethical issues
in mental health research with children and adolescents. Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hurley, J. C., & Underwood, M. K. (2002). Children’s understand-
ing of their research rights before and after debriefing: Informed
assent, confidentiality, and stopping participation. Child Devel-
opment, 73, 132–143.
Kalichman, S. C. (1999). Mandated reporting of suspected child
abuse—Ethics, law and policy (2nd ed.). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Kodish, E., Eder, M., Noll, R. B., Ruccione, K., Lange, B.,
Angiolillo, A., et al. (2004). Communication of randomization in
childhood leukemia trails. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 291, 470 – 475.
Koocher, G. P. (1987). Children under the law: The paradigm of
consent. In G. B. Melton (Ed.), Reforming the law: Impact of
child development research (pp. 3–26). New York: Guilford
Press.
Koocher, G. P. (2003). Ethical issues in psychotherapy with ado-
lescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, 1247–1256.
Koocher, G. P., & Keith-Spiegel, P. C. (1990). Children, ethics,
and the law. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Kotch, J. B. (2000). Ethical issues in longitudinal child maltreat-
ment research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 696 –709.
Lefley, H. P. (2000). Families’ perspectives on confidentiality in
the treatment of mental illness. In J. J. Gates & B. S. Arons
(Eds.), Privacy and confidentiality in mental health care (pp.
33– 46). Baltimore: Brookes.
Liss, M. B. (1994). Child abuse: Is there a mandate for researcher
to report? Ethics and Behavior, 4, 133–146.
Mann, T. (1994). Informed consent for psychological research: Do
subjects comprehend consent forms and understand their legal
rights? Psychological Science, 5, 140 –143.
Margolin, G. (1982). Ethical and legal considerations in marital
and family therapy. American Psychologist, 37, 788 – 801.
Mathy, R. M., Kerr, D. L., & Haydin, B. M. (2003). Methodolog-
ical rigor and ethical considerations in Internet-mediated re-
search. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice Training, 40,
77– 85.
Melton, G. B. (1990). Certificates of confidentiality under the
Public Health Service Act: Strong protection but not enough.
Violence and Victims, 5, 67–71.
Melton, G. B. (1992). Respecting boundaries: Minors, privacy, and
behavioral research. In B. Stanley & J. E. Sieber (Eds.), Social
research on children and adolescents (pp. 65– 87). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Melton, G. B. (1999). Parents and children: Legal reform to
facilitate children’s participation. American Psychologist, 54,
935–944.
Michalak, E. E., & Szabo, A. (1998). Guidelines for Internet
research: An update. European Psychologist, 3, 70 –75.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of
Biomedical and Behavioral Research, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare. (1979, April 18). The Belmont
Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Research. Retrieved November 2003 from
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm
National Institutes of Health. (2003, July 22). Frequently asked
questions on Certificates of Confidentiality. Retrieved December
22, 2003 from http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/policy/coc/faqs.htm
Putnam, F. W., Liss, M. B., & Landsverk, J. (1996). Ethical issues
in maltreatment research with children and adolescents. In K.
Hoagwood, P. S. Jensen, & C. B. Fisher (Eds.), Ethical issues in
mental health research with children and adolescents (pp. 113–
132). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Runyan, D. K. (2000). The ethical, legal, and methodological
implications of directly asking children about abuse. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 15, 675– 681.
Sieber, J. E. (1994). Issues presented by mandatory reporting
 SPECIAL ISSUE: ETHICS IN COUPLE AND FAMILY RESEARCH
requirements to researchers of child abuse and neglect. Ethics &
Behavior, 4, 1–22.
Sieber, J. E. (2001). Privacy and confidentiality: As related to
human research in social and behavioral science. In National
Bioethics Advisory Commission (Ed.), Ethical and policy issues
in research involving human subjects (pp. N1–N50). Bethesda,
MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Retrieved Janu-
ary 30, 2004 from the Online Center for Engineering and Sci-
ence, Case Western Reserve Library, http://onlineethics.org/
reseth/nbac
Sieber, J. E., & Levine, R. J. (2004). Informed consent and consent
forms for research participants. APS Observer, 17, 25–26.
Smith, D. (2003). What you need to know about the new code.
APA Monitor, 34, 62– 65.
Society for Research in Child Development, Committee for Ethical
Conduct in Child Development Research. (1996). Ethical stan-
dards for research with children. SRCD Directory of Members
(pp. 337–339). Retrieved December 9, 2003 from http://
www.srcd.org/about.html#standards
Stanley, B., & Sieber, J. E. (1992). Social research on children and
adolescents: Ethical issues. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stern, S. R. (2003). Encountering distressing information in online
research: A consideration of legal and ethical responsibilities.
New Media and Society, 5, 249 –266.
Thompson, R. A. (1992). Developmental changes in research risk
View publication stats
167
and benefit: A changing calculus of concerns. In B. Stanley &
J. E. Sieber (Eds.), Social research on children and adolescents
(pp. 31– 64). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Turner, C. F., Ku, L., Rogers, S. M., Lindberg, L. D., Pleck, J. H.,
& Sonenstein, F. L. (1998, May 8). Adolescent sexual behavior,
drug use, and violence: Increased reporting with computer survey
technology. Science, 280, 867– 873.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001, November
13). Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Public Welfare: Pt.
46, Effective December 13, 2001. Washington, DC: Office of the
Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration.
Retrieved November 26, 2003 from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/
humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003, April 14).
Protecting personal health information in research: Understand-
ing the HIPAA Privacy Rule (NIH Publication No. 03-5388). Re-
trieved September 25, 2003 from http://privacyruleandresearch
.nih.gov/pr_02.asp
Wolf, L. E., Zandecki, J., & Lo, B. (2004). The Certificate of
Confidentiality application: A view from the NIH institutes. IRB:
Ethics & Human Research, 26, 14 –18.
Received February 2, 2004
Revision received April 26, 2004
Accepted August 4, 2004 䡲