Learn Before
Expedited Research
Expedited research involves studies that pose a somewhat higher risk than exempt research but still expose participants to no more than minimal risk, which is defined as risks encountered by healthy individuals in daily life or during routine examinations. Because the risk is minimal, expedited review can be conducted by just one member of an institutional review board or by a separate committee under the board's authority, rather than the full committee.
0
1
Tags
KPU
Research Methods in Psychology - 4th American Edition @ KPU
Related
Ethical Review of a Research Proposal
A psychologist proposes a study to examine the effects of 48 hours of continuous sleep deprivation on the problem-solving skills of student volunteers. The proposal states that participants will be compensated and that the findings could have important implications for understanding workplace safety. When this proposal is submitted for review, what is the most critical issue the review committee responsible for protecting human participants will focus on?
Addressing IRB Concerns
Informed Consent Form
Minimal Risk
Institutional Approval
Expedited Research
Exempt Research
What is the primary responsibility of an Institutional Review Board (IRB)?
An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is permitted to consist entirely of scientific experts from the same university to ensure the most rigorous technical review of research protocols.
Match each specific research decision with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) ethical criterion it is designed to satisfy.
A psychologist proposes a study on the impact of social isolation on cognitive performance. Arrange the following ethical determinations in the logical order an Institutional Review Board (IRB) must perform them to satisfy the federal mandate of risk-benefit optimization.
A researcher argues that their university's Institutional Review Board (IRB) is 'unqualified' to review their neuroimaging study because one of the mandatory members is a local librarian with no scientific background. According to federal guidelines, this researcher's evaluation is ______ because the board is legally required to include at least one nonscientist to ensure that research protocols are viewed from a broad ethical perspective outside of the scientific community.
According to federal regulations, what is the minimum number of members required to form an Institutional Review Board (IRB), and what is one of the mandatory requirements for its composition?
Match each Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirement or function with its correct description based on federal ethical guidelines in psychological research.
A university forms an Institutional Review Board (IRB) composed of psychology professors and the university’s Director of Human Resources. This committee satisfies the federal requirement of having at least member who is unaffiliated with the institution.
A researcher submits a study design investigating the effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance. Arrange the steps an Institutional Review Board (IRB) takes to analyze and approve this research proposal in the correct logical order.
Suppose you are the director of a new research hospital and must establish its first Institutional Review Board (IRB) to oversee psychological and medical studies. Which of the following configurations successfully constructs a board that adheres to all federal requirements for diversity, scientific representation, and institutional independence?
Federal regulations require that an institutional review board be composed entirely of scientists in order to properly evaluate research protocols for potential ethical problems.
An Institutional Review Board (IRB) evaluates a research protocol where participants are initially deceived about the study's true purpose. The board approves the protocol only on the condition that participants receive a full explanation of the deception immediately following the session. In this scenario, the board is making a judgment that the modified _____ procedures are adequate to meet ethical standards for participant autonomy.
A newly established psychiatric hospital receiving federal funding is forming its first Institutional Review Board (IRB) to review proposed psychological studies. The hospital administration suggests a committee consisting of three clinical psychologists from the hospital staff, one hospital financial director, and one psychiatric nurse also employed by the hospital. Explain whether this proposed committee meets the federal composition requirements for an IRB, referencing specific criteria. Then, outline the primary responsibilities this committee will have once established.
Analyze this scenario from the perspective of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewer. Diagnose the ethical shortcomings of the proposed research protocol based on the core criteria the IRB is responsible for ensuring. How should the board decide on this protocol, and what specific modifications should they require the researcher to make before granting approval?
A university researcher argues that since their study on student exam anxiety only uses an anonymous online survey and presents no physical risk, they do not need to submit their research protocol to the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Evaluate the validity of this researcher's argument based on federal IRB regulations.
Expedited Research
Justifying Minimal Risk Research
How is 'minimal risk' defined in the context of research ethics?
In order for a research study to be classified as 'minimal risk,' the study's procedures must be completely free of any potential physical or psychological harm.
Classify each of the following research procedures by matching it to the correct risk category, based on whether the potential for harm exceeds the threshold of daily life or routine evaluations.
Arrange the steps in the logical process used to analyze whether a psychological research study meets the ethical criteria for 'minimal risk'.
Imagine you are developing a research protocol to study the effects of environmental noise on reading comprehension. Which of the following study designs would you construct to ensure the procedure remains at the level of 'minimal risk'?
Under research ethics guidelines, 'minimal risk' is defined as potential harm that does not exceed the risks individuals ordinarily encounter in their daily lives or during routine physical or psychological evaluations.
Match each component or implication of the 'minimal risk' standard in psychological research with the description that best represents its role in the ethical review process.
An ethics committee is reviewing a research proposal where participants are asked to give a short speech to a small audience. To evaluate whether this study meets the standard of 'minimal risk,' the committee must judge whether the social anxiety induced by the task is no greater than the anxiety typically encountered in _____.
An IRB is evaluating a study on reading comprehension under distraction. To determine if the study qualifies for expedited review, the committee must analyze whether the potential psychological stress of the distraction task is no greater than the level of stress individuals ordinarily experience in their daily lives or during routine examinations. If the study meets this criteria, it is classified as posing _____.
Order the steps an IRB member or researcher must take to evaluate a research proposal's risk status and determine the appropriate level of institutional review board oversight.
Learn After
Greater Than Minimal Risk Research
Which of the following best describes the characteristics and review process of expedited research?
The expedited review process allows for a research study to be approved by a single member of a review board, provided the risks to participants are no greater than those typically encountered in daily life.
A psychology researcher is preparing a study that qualifies for an expedited review. Match each specific aspect of the study's design or review process to the justification that explains why it meets the criteria for this category.
A university ethics committee receives a proposal for a new psychology study. Arrange the following steps in the logical sequence the committee must follow to categorize the study as expedited research.
In the context of institutional review board (IRB) procedures, who is authorized to conduct an expedited review for research that poses no more than minimal risk to participants?
A psychology researcher is preparing a study that qualifies for an expedited review. To demonstrate your understanding of this category, match each core aspect of expedited research to the statement that best describes its meaning.
An IRB's decision to approve a study via a(n) _____ review process reflects an evaluative judgment that the research procedures pose no more than 'minimal risk' to participants, making the deliberation of the full committee unnecessary for participant safety.
Dr. Smith is planning a study in which participants complete a computerized attention task. He determines the risks are slightly higher than exempt research, but do not exceed the risks of routine cognitive testing encountered in daily life. True or False: This study can be approved by a single member of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) rather than the full committee.
When analyzing the procedural requirements of a study that poses a higher risk than exempt research but does not exceed the risks healthy people face in daily life, an IRB can utilize a(n) _____ review process, allowing a single member or subcommittee to approve the study instead of the full committee.
Evaluate the standard decision-making sequence an Institutional Review Board (IRB) follows to process and approve a study under the expedited review pathway. Order the steps from first to last.
State the definition of expedited research, describing how its risk level compares to exempt research and what constitutes 'minimal risk' according to institutional review board standards. Additionally, identify who is authorized to review such studies.
Based on this scenario, explain why this study qualifies for expedited review and describe how the administrative review process will differ from a standard full-board review.
Imagine you are a researcher submitting a study on how listening to music affects student concentration during a spelling test. Assuming the study poses no more than minimal risk, how would you justify requesting an expedited review, and who would be responsible for reviewing your proposal?