Technical Competency
Informed Consent
Assessing
How to assess or score: for non-subject matter experts
Whatever your question (if you choose or adapt a question from the Anchoring section or create your own), the Deep Dive table can help you identify positive and negative aspects – green or reg flags in a candidate’s answers.
For a simple scoring or assessment scheme, you can simply assign +1 to positive or green flag content and -1 to red flag answers.
For a scoring system of say 0-3 for each question, we would recommend the following matrix to be used in combination with the Deep Dive table for each value or competency. We recommend printing copies of the Deep Dive tables, as well as the full Murad Code, so that these can be easily consulted when assessing a candidate.
| Scoring / grading | Values |
|---|---|
| 0 | Misaligned (harmful, unsafe, or dismissive answers) with red flags - No elements demonstrated or more than 1 limiting behaviors shown. |
| 1 | Weak alignment (superficial, misses core principles) with 1 or 2 red flags - Only 1 or 2 elements demonstrated, with more than 1 limited behaviour also shown. |
| 2 | Partial alignment (mentions some key elements but incomplete) with 1 or no red flags - A good number of elements demonstrated but also 1 red flag or concern raised. |
| 3 | Strong alignment (clear survivor-centred reasoning, practical actions, responsibility) with no red flags - Multiple elements demonstrated and no red flags or limiting behaviours raised. |
Below, there is also an assessment guide to the sample questions provided in the Anchoring section.
Sample written test Examples
Hypothetical (can be based on relevant context and job requirements):
1. A young female survivor (over 18 years old) who you have been working with approaches you for help to speak to a famous television journalist – this journalist is notoriously sensationalist and has a reputation for indiscretion. What do you do?
Main elements expected in answer: describes respect for survivor’s autonomy and choices; discuss with survivor concerns and risks to ensure fully informed and consider ways to manage and mitigate risks together; identifies careful balance not to make decisions for the survivor or prioritise your own fears; discuss alternatives (e.g. another journalist with a better track record) that meet the survivor’s identified objectives; if not comfortable with risks but survivor is, see if there is a media expert who can accompany her and provide guidance and risk mitigation.
Red flags: makes decision for survivor, assumes she is not thinking clearly about it or infantilises survivor, says things like ‘you can’t let her do it’.
2. A young man and his older brother attend an interview with you. The young man is quiet and the brother does all the talking. The older brother is passionate about justice and bringing honour back to the family. How do you approach this?
Main elements expected in answer: recognition that there may be some influence over the young man’s choice to be there and to undertake the interview; emphasises the importance of the ‘voluntary’ component of consent; explores ways to respectfully and appropriately (if gender differential) get time to speak to the young man alone without his brother there to try to understand what his wishes are and what the influences are on him; ensure two way conversation during a preliminary informed consent phase and asks questions of the young man to ensure he understands and to understand his wishes, objectives and needs; explores option of giving the young man time to get advice and consider once he has all the information.
Red flags: carries on with informed consent and interview, provides information and seeks affirmation of young man’s consent without probing or understanding brother (and other) influences. (See Deep Dive columns on behaviours which indicate need for further improvement.)
Technical:
1. What does ‘informed consent’ mean in the context of SCRSV work, and why is it important?
See Principle 2 of the Murad Code and the Deep Dive section.
2. What are the key elements of informed consent in relation to obtaining and using SCRSV information from survivors?
See Principle 2 of the Murad Code, and the Deep Dive section.
3. Outline step by step how you would design and structure an informed consent discussion for SCRSV survivor interviews. [This can also be converted easily into a case scenario or role play.]
Main elements expected in answer: considerations of power differentials and how to remove pressure on survivors to consent - could include providing information to trusted partners so survivor can chose to approach/engage or not, or building a two stage process to give time for consideration or advice; in terms of structure - ensuring a clear introduction of who you are, your role and affiliation; open questions that ask about the survivor’s objectives, needs and concerns first (so as not to influence them with your objectives); built-in open question checks of survivor understanding and objectives/wishes throughout; work with community expert and language specialist to ensure accessible language and understandable concepts; ensures all relevant information is communicated and understood – including purpose, methodology, potential benefits/outcomes/uses, potential risks, measures for confidentiality, information protection and safety, any limitations on confidentiality (mandatory reporting), survivor rights and ways they have control and influence over the process (can decide not to answer a question or chose not to discuss a topic, can take a break, can stop, can ask questions, can plan together to make sure the location is comfortable and safe, that the right people are in the room, etc.); checklists or red flags for indications of issues with capacity or free voluntariness. Choices for who to share information (based on a default of no one without their express specific consent).
Red flags: vague and unfocused; focused on provision of information followed by closed question to obtain affirmation; no discussion of ways to reduce pressure or address imbalances in power differentials; does not include the necessary information content; uses words like convince or persuade. (See Deep Dive columns on behaviours which indicate need for further improvement.)
3. Application Exercise: Share Principle 2 of the Murad Code and ask the candidate to reflect on how they would operationalise it in a practical situation (e.g. planning and design, team training, field protocols, handling a breach).
Main elements expected in answer: could include - designing an informed consent process (two stages to give time to consider and get advice) and form to record consent (including for persons with intellectual disabilities and literacy challenges); providing training for those conducting consent processes to include scenario-based training with increasing complexities and a green light requirement (that the trainee must demonstrate competency before being allowed to perform informed consent processes); a tipsheet for red flags during an informed consent process (in case any element of consent not present); consideration of power dynamics, differentials and measures included to proactively reduce – including how approaches are made, how conversations are structured; open questions focused on survivor’s objectives and needs first; monitoring and feedback mechanisms, or observation in the field.
Red flags: Vague answer with no measures clearly articulated. (See Deep Dive columns on behaviours which indicate need for further improvement.)
Sample interview questions
1. Please provide us with an example when you had concerns that informed consent was not fully informed or fully voluntary – what was the issue and how did you deal with it?
Main elements expected in answer: identifies clearly an indication/issue which would render consent invalid (capacity, communication/comprehension, pressure, confirmation bias and wish to please, not wanting to say no to you as impolite, etc.); describes steps taken to confirm survivor understanding, capacity, voluntary choices, etc. – including two-way conversation, open questions, understanding checks and read backs; if continued concerns describes methods to rectify issue – e.g. pausing until a better interpreter is found, identifying means for a supported decision-making, giving time to consider and get advice, removing a person of influence from the room, etc.; clearly respects and supports survivor autonomy and displays understanding of additional steps or measures which may be necessary; also clearly draws a line and recognises when not possible and therefore should not proceed.
Red flags: continues even with doubts, no adaptations or additional measures to probe or understand better what is happening and address issue, treats consent as implied or inferred by presence or simply because affirmation given to closed questions, demonstrates paternalistic or infantilising attitude to survivor’s decision to proceed/give consent. (See Deep Dive columns on behaviours which indicate need for further improvement.)
2. For an informed consent process, what steps do you take to reduce power differentials and why is this important.
Main elements expected in answer: acknowledges power differentials and reasons for this, acknowledges impact this has on voluntariness of consent. Measures might include: designing two stage process to give time to consider and get advice; ensuring their legal advisor with them (rare in practice, above Code minimum standards); asking open questions focusing on their objectives and wishes first (so not influenced by what you want); providing information to trusted partners or intermediaries (with care) so survivors can chose to come to you or not; seeking to understand community dynamics and intermediary motives; not wearing uniforms or other symbols of power or wealth; using plain language (with assistance of interpreters if necessary); ensuring they understand survivor rights and the control and choices they have over the interaction and planning; arrangement of chairs in the room so not opposing or behind a desk.
Red flags: dismissive of power differentials or states they are unavoidable and cannot be mitigated. Is unable to mention any mitigating measure
3. Why is survivor agency more important than collecting complete data?
Main elements expected in answer: recognises the importance of survivor control and autonomy in light of violence/trauma/loss of control in that situation; recognises ownership of own personal private data; recognises consequences for breach of trust, confidentiality and consent; describes secondary victimisation and poor outcomes for survivors in these circumstances; partial data collected ethically and safely is better than coerced, unconsented full data.
Red Flags: suggests all or nothing approach, dismissive of survivor agency, refers to power to compel evidence or duty to provide to prevent it happening again, prioritisation of own objectives ahead of survivor well-being and rights, demonstrates “ends justify the means” mindset to pursuing justice, accountability or other goals.
4. “Consent is not just about saying ‘yes’—how would you ensure that survivors genuinely feel empowered to refuse or withdraw consent?”
Main elements expected in answer: emphasises need to create space where can say no without pressure to say yes; recognises power differentials and cultural aspects (politeness, etc.); design which allows survivors to make the decision to come to you, rather than approaching them [MC 2.1]; importance of two way conversation with open questions and choices or options which are not just yes or no (without simply seeking affirmation); giving time and space to take advice or consider, check in and reminders of survivor rights throughout; clarity that a decision not to proceed does not affect access to support and services.
Red Flags: sees consent as a one-time affirmation of a closed question, no understanding of pressures on people to agree, no practical measures which help a survivor to feel able to say no.
5. “How would you handle a situation where a survivor initially gives consent but later expresses discomfort?”
Main elements expected in answer: emphasises survivor control and autonomy as key, pauses to check-in and discuss any concerns, acknowledges feelings of discomfort and reassure that they have right to change their mind or reconsider, provides reminders of survivor rights and choices, reviews/renews consent discussion to ensure comfortable with original or an alternative, stops if that is what they wish.
Red Flags: dismissive or minimising of discomfort, continues in spite of discomfort, does not revisit or review consent, insists on use of collected data, prioritises own objectives over survivor autonomy and well-being.
6. Case scenario: you are working in an IDP camp and have met a survivor because a local organisation told you that they wish to tell you about the sexual violence that was inflicted upon them. They seem highly anxious, agitated and very hesitant. What do you do?
Main elements expected in answer: recognises not to push, prioritises survivor well-being and needs ahead of own objectives (considers grounding exercises and ways to alleviate anxiety and agitation), creates safe, calm environment and seeks to explore and hear concerns, seeks to understand their objectives for coming and to ensure no pressure from referring organisation, offers options (different time, place, referral, support person, etc.), asks what they need and wish, creates environment and real opportunity for survivor to withdraw from the engagement if that’s what they want.
Red Flags: any answer which prioritises own objectives, refers to time pressures or constraints, any answer which does not recognise the potential issues of the third party referral, dismissive of anxiety and agitation – ‘everyone is nervous to begin with, they will calm down once we start’.