Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Randomized Experiments01:13

Randomized Experiments

The randomization process involves assigning study participants randomly to experimental or control groups based on their probability of being equally assigned. Randomization is meant to eliminate selection bias and balance known and unknown confounding factors so that the control group is similar to the treatment group as much as possible. A computer program and a random number generator can be used to assign participants to groups in a way that minimizes bias.
Simple randomization
Simple...
Blinding01:11

Blinding

Blinding is a commonly used method of not telling participants which treatment a subject is receiving. Blinding is a critical part of a randomized control trial or RCT. It reduces the bias that affects the results. In an RCT, blinding is used in the form of a placebo. A placebo effect occurs when untreated subjects falsely believe they have received the treatment and report improved symptoms. A placebo or a dummy treatment is administered to subjects to negate the bias caused by such an effect.
Group Design02:01

Group Design

The most basic experimental design involves two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The two groups are designed to be the same except for one difference— experimental manipulation. The experimental group gets the experimental manipulation—that is, the treatment or variable being tested—and the control group does not. Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between the two are due to...
Blind Procedures02:07

Blind Procedures

Ideally, the people who observe and record the children’s behavior are unaware of who was assigned to the experimental or control group, in order to control for experimenter bias. Experimenter bias refers to the possibility that a researcher’s expectations might skew the results of the study. Remember, conducting an experiment requires a lot of planning, and the people involved in the research project have a vested interest in supporting their hypotheses. If the observers knew which child was...
Ethics in Research01:56

Ethics in Research

Today, scientists agree that good research is ethical in nature and is guided by a basic respect for human dignity and safety. However, this has not always been the case. Modern researchers must demonstrate that the research they perform is ethically sound.
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs01:20

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs are crucial methodologies used in evaluating and comparing the bioavailability of different drug products. These designs are categorized into various types: completely randomized, randomized block, repeated measures, cross and carry-over, and Latin square designs.Completely randomized designs involve randomly allocating treatments to all subjects participating in the experiment. This allocation is achieved by assigning unique random numbers to subjects...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Replacing Surrogate Decision-Making with Supported Decision-Making for Minimal Risk Research.

The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics·2026
Same author

Intellectual Disability and Supported Decision-Making in Clinical Research: Anticipating Ethical Challenges.

The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics·2026
Same author

Using Supported Decision-Making to Promote Value-Aligned Research Participation.

The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics·2026
Same author

Supported Decision-Making and the Inclusion of People who Lack Decisional Capacity in Greater than Minimal Risk Research.

The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics·2026
Same author

Surrogate Decision-Making in Carceral Healthcare.

Journal of general internal medicine·2026
Same author

The Enduring Promise of Personalising Patient Preference Prediction.

Neuroethics·2026
Same journal

Defending the Ethical Permissibility of Laryngeal Transplantation.

The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2026
Same journal

A Framework of Institutional Obligations for Pragmatic Clinical Trials.

The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2026
Same journal

Should Adherence to Medical Recommendations Be a Requirement for Kidney Transplant Candidacy?

The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2026
Same journal

How "America First" Abandoned Global Health: The Case for an African Model.

The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2026
Same journal

Carrots and Sticks: Incentives in Shaping Digital Health Products.

The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2026
Same journal

From Empowerment to Offloading: Task Shifting and the Redistribution of Responsibility in Digital Health.

The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 26, 2026

Working with Human Tissues for Translational Cancer Research
07:48

Working with Human Tissues for Translational Cancer Research

Published on: November 26, 2015

Must research participants understand randomization?

David Wendler1

  • 1National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Building 10, Room 1C118, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. dwendler@nih.gov

The American Journal of Bioethics : AJOB
|January 31, 2009
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Understanding randomization is often assumed necessary for informed consent in clinical trials. This study questions this assumption, suggesting further analysis is needed before improving participant comprehension efforts.

More Related Videos

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
04:53

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition

Published on: September 20, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 26, 2026

Working with Human Tissues for Translational Cancer Research
07:48

Working with Human Tissues for Translational Cancer Research

Published on: November 26, 2015

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
04:53

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition

Published on: September 20, 2019

Area of Science:

  • Medical Ethics
  • Clinical Trial Design
  • Research Participant Rights

Background:

  • Physicians in standard care use clinical judgment for patient treatment selection.
  • Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) use random assignment, differing from standard care.
  • It's widely assumed participants must understand randomization for valid informed consent in RCTs.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate the assumption that understanding randomization is essential for informed consent in RCTs.
  • To question the implication that RCTs frequently fail informed consent due to poor participant understanding of randomization.

Main Methods:

  • This study is primarily a conceptual analysis and literature review.
  • It examines the logical underpinnings of the informed consent process in the context of randomization.

Main Results:

  • The necessity of understanding randomization for valid informed consent in RCTs is a plausible but under-analyzed assumption.
  • Current conclusions about inadequate informed consent in RCTs may be premature without this analysis.

Conclusions:

  • Further investigation into the assumption is warranted before implementing broad educational interventions for participants on randomization.
  • The ethical validity of informed consent in RCTs may not solely depend on a deep understanding of the randomization process.