Learn Before
Imagine you receive an IRB review stating that your proposed online survey on sensitive personal history does not adequately protect participant anonymity. Apply the standard procedure for addressing IRB concerns: describe the tone and timing of your response, and state the exact procedural step you must complete before resubmitting your protocol.
Question: Imagine you receive an IRB review stating that your proposed online survey on sensitive personal history does not adequately protect participant anonymity. Apply the standard procedure for addressing IRB concerns: describe the tone and timing of your response, and state the exact procedural step you must complete before resubmitting your protocol.
Sample answer: I must respond to the IRB's concern in good faith and without delay. Before resubmitting the protocol, I must modify the online survey's design and data collection procedures to ensure that participant anonymity is fully protected.
Key points:
- Respond in good faith
- Respond without delay
- Modify research design and procedures prior to resubmission
Rubric: Grading criteria: 1) Mentions responding in good faith and without delay. 2) Mentions making modifications to the research design or procedures to protect anonymity. 3) Specifies that these changes must be done before resubmitting the protocol.
0
1
Tags
KPU
Research Methods in Psychology - 4th American Edition @ KPU
Related
What action must a researcher take if an Institutional Review Board (IRB) identifies ethical concerns with a proposed study?
Match each researcher action with the appropriate description of how it addresses ethical concerns raised by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) during the review process.
A researcher planning a study on social anxiety receives a notice from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) expressing concerns about the potential for psychological distress during the experiment. Arrange the following steps in the correct order to show how the researcher should ethically address these concerns.
If an Institutional Review Board (IRB) identifies a risk of participant coercion and requests a change to recruitment procedures, a researcher who defends their original method as 'standard practice' without proposing any procedural adjustments has fulfilled the ethical requirement to respond in good faith.
When an Institutional Review Board (IRB) identifies ethical concerns during the review process, researchers are expected to respond to these inquiries in good faith and without delay.
What is the primary intent behind the requirement for researchers to respond 'in good faith' to ethical concerns raised by an Institutional Review Board (IRB)?
A researcher has received an IRB decision letter listing four distinct ethical concerns. Match each IRB concern (left column) with the protocol modification that best addresses it (right column).
An IRB review letter identifies two concerns: (1) the recruitment materials target financially vulnerable individuals with an unusually large cash incentive, and (2) the consent form does not explain how participants' personal data will be protected. A researcher responds by revising the consent form but leaves the recruitment materials completely unchanged. Because the researcher did not address both concerns _____, the IRB is likely to withhold approval and request further revisions before the protocol can move forward.
A researcher studying trauma recall in college students receives an IRB decision letter listing concerns about participant safety, consent adequacy, and data privacy. Evaluate the following researcher actions and arrange them in the order that best ensures all ethical concerns are fully resolved before the protocol is resubmitted.
If an Institutional Review Board (IRB) expresses concerns about a researcher's recruitment methods being potentially coercive, and the researcher responds by arguing that the methods are 'standard practice' without proposing any procedural adjustments, they have failed to meet the ethical requirement of responding in _____.
Based on the protocol review process, what are the primary responsibilities of a researcher when an Institutional Review Board (IRB) identifies ethical concerns or questions regarding their proposed study? Detail how they should respond and what types of actions they may need to take before resubmitting.
Explain what it means for Dr. Aris to address the IRB's concerns 'in good faith' and 'without delay' in this situation. What must Dr. Aris do with their study's design and procedures before resubmitting the protocol?
Imagine you receive an IRB review stating that your proposed online survey on sensitive personal history does not adequately protect participant anonymity. Apply the standard procedure for addressing IRB concerns: describe the tone and timing of your response, and state the exact procedural step you must complete before resubmitting your protocol.