Development and Validation of the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC)
- 550 Downloads
Development and targeting efforts by academic organizations to effectively promote research integrity can be enhanced if they are able to collect reliable data to benchmark baseline conditions, to assess areas needing improvement, and to subsequently assess the impact of specific initiatives. To date, no standardized and validated tool has existed to serve this need. A web- and mail-based survey was administered in the second half of 2009 to 2,837 randomly selected biomedical and social science faculty and postdoctoral fellows at 40 academic health centers in top-tier research universities in the United States. Measures included the Survey of Organizational Research Climate (SORC) as well as measures of perceptions of organizational justice. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded seven subscales of organizational research climate, all of which demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s α ranging from 0.81 to 0.87) and adequate test–retest reliability (Pearson r ranging from 0.72 to 0.83). A broad range of correlations between the seven subscales and five measures of organizational justice (unadjusted regression coefficients ranging from 0.13 to 0.95) document both construct and discriminant validity of the instrument. The SORC demonstrates good internal (alpha) and external reliability (test–retest) as well as both construct and discriminant validity.
KeywordsResearch integrity Organizational climate Reliability Validity Organizational survey
The authors wish to acknowledge the excellent work of Shannon Donald in several key aspects contributing to this manuscript including project coordination and sample frame development. This research was supported by Award Number R21-RR025279 from the NIH National Center for Research Resources and the DHHS Office of Research Integrity through the collaborative Research on Research Integrity Program.
Conflict of interest
The study protocol was approved by the Regions Hospital Institutional Review Board, the oversight body with responsibility for all research conducted at HealthPartners Institute for Education and Research, and by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Institutional Review Board.
- Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Anderson, M. S., Horn, A. S., Risbey, K. R., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007). What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists. Academic Medicine, 82, 853–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments (U.S.), National Research Council (U.S.), United States. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health. Office of Research Integrity. (2002). Integrity in scientific research: Creating an environment that promotes responsible conduct. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Council of Canadian Academies, The Expert Panel on Research Integrity. (2010). Honesty, accountability and trust: Fostering research integrity in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Council of Canadian Academies.Google Scholar
- Council of Graduate Schools. (2011). Project for scholarly integrity (WWW document). http://www.scholarlyintegrity.org/ShowContent.aspx?id=402.
- Crain, A. L., Martinson, B. C., Ronning, E. A., McGree, D., Anderson, M. S., & DeVries, R. (2008). Supplemental sampling frame data as a means of assessing response bias in a hierarchical sample of university faculty. In Presented at annual meetings of the American Association for public opinion research, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
- Crain, A. L., Martinson, B. C., Thrush, C. R., (2012). Relationships between the survey of organizational research climate (SORC) and self-reported research practices. Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s11948-012-9409-0
- Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). NIH guide for grants and contracts: Announcement of final PHS policy on instruction in the responsible conduct of research. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-01-007.html.
- Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). NIH guide for grants and contracts: Notice of suspension of PHS policy. (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-01-020.html).
- Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Integrity and Misconduct in Research: Report of the Commission on Research Integrity. (1995). Commission by U.S. Congress No. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1996-746-425. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.Google Scholar
- Irish Council for Bioethics, Rapporteur Group. (2010). Recommendations for promoting research integrity. Dublin: The Irish Council for Bioethics.Google Scholar
- Kohn, L. T., Corrigan, J. M., & Donaldson, M. S., (2000). To Err is human: Building a safer health system. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2010). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Leape, L. L. (2010). Transparency and public reporting are essential for a safe health care system. New York: The Commonwealth Fund.Google Scholar
- Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., Crain, A. L., & De Vries, R. (2006). Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, 51–66. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16810337.
- Martinson, B. C., Crain, A. L., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2009). Institutions’ expectations for researchers’ self-funding, federal grant holding and private industry involvement: Manifold drivers of self-interest and researcher behavior. Academic Medicine, 84, 1491–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mumford, M., & Helton, W. B. (2001). Organizational influences on scientific integrity. In: Proceedings of the 2000 ORI conference on research on research integrity (pp. 73–90). Bethesda, MD: Investigating Research Integrity.Google Scholar
- Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. (1992). Responsible science, Volume I: Ensuring the integrity of the research process. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
- Rennie, D., & Gunsalus, C. K. (2008). What is research misconduct? In F. O. Wells & M. J. G. Farthing (Eds.), Fraud and misconduct in biomedical research. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press.Google Scholar
- Schein, E. H. (1991). What is culture? In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 243–253). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 53–74.Google Scholar
- Steneck, N., & Mayer, T. (2010). Singapore statement on research integrity (WWW document). http://www.singaporestatement.org/.
- Wenger, N. S., Korenman, S. G., Berk, R., & Berry, S. (1997). The ethics of scientific research: An analysis of focus groups of scientists and institutional representatives. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 45, 371–380.Google Scholar