Literature DB >> 21680975

How do IRB members make decisions? A review and research agenda.

Ivor A Pritchard1.   

Abstract

Many factors have been found to influence the nature and quality of the human research ethics review process. These are reviewed along with discussion of ways in which normal psychological characteristics and group decision-making processes may affect the decisions of institutional review board (IRB) members when reviewing proposed research activities, and may contribute to the acknowledged variability of IRB responses to identical research proposals. Three salient features of human judgment and decision-making illuminated by the existing psychological research literature are used to illustrate this idea: Research findings related to (a) risk perception and acceptance, (b) the standards people use to make decisions, and (c) some nonrational influences on group decision-making suggest how psychological characteristics may affect some outcomes of convened IRB meetings. Recognizing such influences may enable the improvement of IRB decision-making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21680975     DOI: 10.1525/jer.2011.6.2.31

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


  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Adolescent Sexual Behavior Research: Perspectives of Investigators, IRB Members, and IRB Staff about Risk Categorization and IRB Approval.

Authors:  Kyle A McGregor; Devon J Hensel; Amy C Waltz; Elizabeth Molnar; Mary A Ott
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug

3.  Ethics Review for a Multi-Site Project Involving Tribal Nations in the Northern Plains.

Authors:  Jyoti Angal; Julie M Petersen; Deborah Tobacco; Amy J Elliott
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2016-02-28       Impact factor: 1.742

4.  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

5.  The Role of Intuition in Risk/Benefit Decision-Making in Human Subjects Research.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2016-06-13       Impact factor: 2.622

6.  The Harvard Catalyst Common Reciprocal IRB Reliance Agreement: an innovative approach to multisite IRB review and oversight.

Authors:  Sabune J Winkler; Elizabeth Witte; Barbara E Bierer
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2014-09-08       Impact factor: 4.689

7.  Perceived Risks and Benefits in a Text Message Study of Substance Abuse and Sexual Behavior.

Authors:  Erin E Bonar; Gerald P Koocher; Matthew F Benoit; R Lorraine Collins; James A Cranford; Maureen A Walton
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  2017-03-10

8.  Reimagining IRB review to incorporate a clear and convincing standard of evidence.

Authors:  E Smith; E E Anderson
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 2.622

9.  Standards of evidence for institutional review board decision-making.

Authors:  David B Resnik
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2020-12-08       Impact factor: 3.057

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.