Literature DB >> 19385866

What scientists want from their research ethics committee.

Patricia Keith-Spiegel1, Barbara Tabachnick.   

Abstract

Whereas investigators have directed considerable criticism against Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), the desirable characteristics of IRBs have not previously been empirically determined. A sample of 886 experienced biomedical and social and behavioral scientists rated 45 descriptors of IRB actions and functions as to their importance. Predictions derived from organizational justice research findings in other work settings were generally borne out. Investigators place high value on the fairness and respectful consideration of their IRBs. Expected differences between biomedical and social behavioral researchers and other variables were unfounded. Recommendations are offered for educating IRBs to accord researchers greater respect and fair treatment.

Entities:  

Year:  2006        PMID: 19385866     DOI: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.67

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  22 in total

1.  Using the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool to Guide Quality Improvement.

Authors:  Daniel E Hall; Barbara H Hanusa; Bruce S Ling; Roslyn A Stone; Galen E Switzer; Michael J Fine; Robert M Arnold
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2015-11-02       Impact factor: 1.742

2.  Scientists' perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors.

Authors:  Brian C Martinson; Melissa S Anderson; A Lauren Crain; Raymond de Vries
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  A Rare Opportunity: Examining the Experience of a New Institutional Review Board.

Authors:  Linda Parreco; Lisa Rooney; Sharon Hampp; Amanda Brown; Lori Minasian
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2019-05-20       Impact factor: 1.742

4.  Awareness of Federal Regulatory Mechanisms Relevant to Community-Engaged Research: Survey of Health Disparities-Oriented NIH-Funded Investigators.

Authors:  Stephanie M Fullerton; Emily E Anderson; Ketch Cowan; Rachel C Malen; Doug Brugge
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 1.742

5.  Assessing Institutional Ethics Committees in India Using the IRB-RAT.

Authors:  Tiffany Chenneville; Lynette Menezes; Lauren M Bylsma; Angela Mann; Jayendrakumar Kosambiya; Rajendra Baxi
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  The importance of organizational justice in ensuring research integrity.

Authors:  Brian C Martinson; A Lauren Crain; Raymond De Vries; Melissa S Anderson
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.742

7.  Environmental Factors Contributing to Wrongdoing in Medicine: A Criterion-Based Review of Studies and Cases.

Authors:  James M Dubois; Kelly Carroll; Tyler Gibb; Elena Kraus; Timothy Rubbelke; Meghan Vasher; Emily E Anderson
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  2011-11-29

8.  The Real-Time IRB: A Collaborative Innovation to Decrease IRB Review Time.

Authors:  Ryan Spellecy; Ann Marie Eve; Emily R Connors; Reza Shaker; David C Clark
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 1.742

9.  A Case-Study of the Resources and Functioning of Two Research Ethics Committees in Western India.

Authors:  Tiffany Chenneville; Lynette Menezes; Jayendrakumar Kosambiya; Rajendra Baxi
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2016-07-31       Impact factor: 1.742

10.  Investigators' successful strategies for working with Institutional Review Boards.

Authors:  Juliana C Cartwright; Susan E Hickman; Christine A Nelson; Kathleen A Knafl
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 2.228

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.