. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2006 Oct 12.

Published in final edited form as: Psychosomatics. 2005;46(5):440–450. doi: 10.1176/appi.psy.46.5.440

TABLE 2.

Physician-in-Training Ratings of Educational Attention Needs for the Complex Ethical, Social, and Legal Issues Surrounding Bioethics Principles

	Gender
	Women (N = 168)		Men (N = 163)			Overall (N = 331)
Bioethics Principle	Mean Rating^a	SD	Mean Rating^a	SD	Difference^b	Mean Rating^a	SD
Respect for human dignity	6.64	1.55	6.17	1.60	0.30	6.41	1.57
Compassion for suffering	6.38	1.66	6.03	1.71	0.23	6.21	1.69
Responsibility to improve community	6.48	1.59	5.87	1.64	0.39*	6.18	1.61
Non-discrimination	6.50	1.71	5.79	1.76	0.46**	6.15	1.73
Justice	6.15	1.41	5.87	1.45	0.18	6.01	1.43
Truth-telling and honesty	6.12	1.45	5.68	1.49	0.29	5.90	1.47
Scientific integrity and research	6.04	1.47	5.66	1.52	0.25	5.85	1.49
Respecting the law	5.93	1.42	5.71	1.46	0.14	5.82	1.44
Mean^c	6.28	1.14	5.85	1.18	0.37***	6.06	1.16

Represents response on a 9-point scale indicating attention needed (1 = ‘‘much less’’ to 9 = ‘‘much more’’) relative to the amount currently provided.

Standardized mean difference (pooled SD = 1.56) for gender comparisons for an item. Gender means are significantly different for indicated items at p<0.10 (*), p<0.05 (**), or p<0.01(***) by Fisher’s least significant difference for items and by analysis main effect for means.

From a MANOVA with item as a repeated measure and gender and training level as independent variables. Significant main effects were seen for gender (F = 11.60, df = 1, 325, p<0.01; d = 0.37) and item (F = 9.84, df = 7, 319, p<0.0001; maximum Cohen’s d = 0.38). Overall item differences > 0.19 and within-gender item differences >0.26 are significantly different (p<0.05) by Fisher’s least significant difference.