Spradling, Charlotte G

Document Sample
Spradling, Charlotte G Powered By Docstoc
					No minutes are provided for a February, 2010, IRB Meeting. The board dealt with all
applications by Blackboard discussion, and no additional business needed to be handled in a
face-to-face meeting. Minutes from the January, 2011, IRB meeting and actions by the IRB
chair and membership (January 26 to February 16) were distributed electronically. The minutes
and actions received unanimous approval by email vote.


Human Subjects IRB Actions Taken between Meetings on February 16 and March 16,
2011

Actions by the Chair

Actions on applications previously given Conditional Approval:

Chequan Collins
Concept Analysis: Adherence in the Adult Diabetic Patient, (application no. 01.11.002)
Revised application still warrants Conditional Approval.
Conditions:
   1) In item 6, change the start date for the study to come after approval by the IRB. The new start date
       should be after anticipated approval by the IRB, not a date before the application was submitted.
   2) In item XB, two items that are marked "yes" do not appear to be in the Informed Consent form: a)
       contact information for a counseling center, b) statement concerning a student's grade. Your
       response to item XC should explain why these two pieces of information are not included in the
       informed Consent form. Simply repeating the descriptions of the items, as was done in the revised
       application, is not an explanation.

Curt Rendall
Interactive Homework: Fostering Acquisition of Spanish as a Second Language Through Family
Engagement, (application no. 01.11.004)
Conditions met in revised application.

Amanda Morales
The Effect of Daily Fluency Instruction on First Grade Students' Fluency and Comprehension,
(application no. 01.11.009)
Conditions met in revised application.

Susan Tregle
Evaluation of Computer Based Reading Intervention based on Kirkpatrick's Four Level Evaluation
Model, (application no. 01.11.011)
Conditions met in revised application.

Jennifer Wilson
A Survey Study on the Use of Assistive Technology for Students Diagnosed with Juvenile Rheumatoid
Arthritis or Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, (application no. 01.11.012)
Conditions met in revised application.

Linda Beckermeyer
The Effects of a Heart Disease Educational Program on the Quality of Life of Heart Failure Patients,
(application no. 02.11.005)
Conditions met in revised application.
Actions on applications submitted for Exempt status:

Melissa Martarona
Establishing Goals in Partnership with Teachers: The Effect of this Behavioral Management Strategy on
Academics and Behavior in Students with Exceptional Needs, (application no. 02.11.006)
Conditions for exemption met in revised application.
Crystal Barnes
Does the LEAP Tutorial Program Enhance Student Achievement, (application no. 02.11.018)
Conditions for exemption met in revised application.

Chanel Savoie
In Learning to Love Literature, Children Can Learn To Love Themselves, (application no. 03.11.001)
Not yet approved.
1) The application is missing signatures for the faculty sponsor and approving agent.
2) The starting date for the project should be after anticipated IRB approval.

Nicholaus Smith
The Affect of Problem Behaviors in Schools on Students’ Standardized Test (LEAP, iLEAP, and GEE),
(application no. 03.11.003)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Daniel Baskin
Does START on Time! Reduce frequency of Tardiness up to 90% as compared to Traditional Means of
Tardy Reduction Procedures?, (application no. 03.11.004)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Kyle Shirley
The Accelerated Reader Program and the Louisiana Graduate Exit Exam: A Correlational Study,
(application no. 03.11.005)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Emily Fanguy
The Influence of Vocabulary Strategies on Reading Comprehension, (application no. 03.11.006)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Luke Pardy
The Impact on the Student Performance of Teachers’ Use of Technology, (application no. 03.11.007)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Sarah Long
The Effects of Incentives on State Testing of Sixth Grade Math Students, (application no. 03.11.008)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Jamie Burns
The Relationship between Reading Assessments and Standardized Tests: Are DIBELS Scores a Good
Indicator of How Well a Student Will Do on iLEAP?, (application no. 03.11.009)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Christina Ann Bloodsworth
Summer Vacation: Is it Worth the Loss of Learning and Knowledge?, (application no. 03.11.010)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Jarrad Rivers
What Is the Impact of After School Tutoring Programs on Standardized Testing Achievement Levels,
(application no. 03.11.011)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Rebecca Wilson
Does Positive Behavior Intervention Support Affect Student Attendance, Suspension, and Expulsion
Rates?, (application no. 03.11.012),
Conditions for Exemption met.

LaToria Stewart
Utilizing Differentiated Instruction with Response to Intervention Methods to Increase Student Learning,
(application no. 03.11.013)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Carmon Cook
The Effects of Dibels Interventions on Students with Reading Difficulties, (application no. 03.11.014)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Joni Byles
Student Achievement: The Advantages and Disadvantages of Using iLEAP and LEAP Data to Create
Lessons that Will Increase Student Achievement, (application no. 03.11.015)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Timothy Parker
Correlations between Highly Qualified Teachers and Indicators of a Quality Learning Environment,
(application no. 03.11.016)
Not yet approved.
According to the letter to Dr. Derwood Duke, in addition to existing data, this project will include a
survey given to teachers. Thus it fits under two categories for Exempt, “Research involving the use of
educational tests …, survey procedures…” and “Research involving the collection or study of existing
data…”. The survey should be included with the application. Also, please justify that the survey portion
of the project meets the stipulations in the second category in item 21 of the application.

DeEtte Canerday
How Math Intervention Affect Math Achievement, (application no. 03.11.017)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Rachel Gifford
The Effect of Interventions on Academic Success, (application no. 03.11.018)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Samanntha Stewart
What Is the Relationship between Highly Qualified Teachers and LEAP, iLEAP, and GEE Results?,
(application no. 03.11.019)
Not yet approved.
The data to be used in the study does appear to exist on the Louisiana Department of Education website.
Please verify that this data may be used for research purposes, such as this study, or obtain permission to
use the data for the study.
Dr. Margaret Cochran
The Development of an In-class Service-learning Project for Honors Ecology, (application no. 03.11.020)
Conditions for Exemption met.
Stephanie Burch
Study of the Impact of Parental Involvement in the Home and School and Its Impact on a Child’s
Educational Achievement, (application no. 03.11.022)
Not yet approved.
Permission is presumably needed to access students’ grade reports and to survey the parents. Please
provide permission from the appropriate authority (superintendent or principal) or explain why
permission is not needed.

Shamica Ursin
Recognition and Response for Students at-risk with Learning Disabilities in Middle School, (application
no. 03.11.023)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Dr. Susan Thorson-Barnett
Coping Styles of Northwestern State University Students, (application no. 03.11.026)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Amy Crow
Was I Prepared?: Candidate Evaluations of Traditional and Alternative Teacher Preparation Programs,
(application no. 03.11.027)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Laura Burns
Levels of Awareness in a Classroom, (application no. 03.11.028)
Conditions for Exemption met.

Tarakeshwar Mishra
International Student Curricular Preferences in US Institutions of Higher Learning, (application no.
03.11.029)
Not yet approved.
1. A certificate for the online course Protecting Human Research Participants is needed for the faculty
sponsor.
2. The Approving Agent signature is missing. Also, the Approving Agent must complete the Protecting
Human Research Participants and submit a certificate of completion. (See the Northwestern State
University IRB website for a link to the board’s Policies and Procedures Manual, particularly the
Researcher Handbook section.
        http://graduateschool.nsula.edu/human-subjects-institutional-review-board-irb/
3. Specify if the survey being used in the study was developed by the investigator or by another person. If
the latter, then provide evidence that permission has been granted to use the survey or it is the public
domain.
4. Describe how participants can give consent to use their data from the survey. Consider including a
statement such as, “By submitting these responses, I am giving consent to use my responses in the study.”
III. Actions by the IRB

Actions on Expedited Review Applications (Blackboard)

Jones, Q., Alcohol Use, Impulsivity, and Risky Sexual Behavior among College Students, (application
no. 03.11.002)
Votes: 8, Conditional = 7 , Revise and Resubmit = 1.
Conditional Approval.

Conditions:
1. The application is missing the certificate for the Protecting Human Research Participants course for
Quiana Jones.
2. Under item IVB, provide at least general information on alternative opportunities for nonparticipants.
3. Under item VB, indicate if the demographic questionnaire was developed by the investigator or provide
evidence that permission to use the questionnaire has been granted by the developer.
4. Under item VB, “loss of confidentiality” may need to be addressed. The investigator may know some
of the subjects, and instructors may learn about subject’s responses. Please address this concern.
5. The response to item 15 indicates that the investigator will not interact with the subjects, but the
response to VIIE indicates the investigator will communicate with subjects. Please address this concern.
6. The Debriefing form includes a statement regarding costs to the subjects, but this appears to be absent
from the Informed Consent.
7. There is a contradiction in the description of how subjects will be recruited. In IIA subjects will be
randomly selected (no description of the random selection process) and in IIIB students will be given
sign-up sheets to specify date and times available to participate in the study.
8. Under item VA, more detail is needed regarding the how subjects will access the survey, including
planned times for access.
9. Under item VA, the description of study activities is incomplete. Three questionnaires in the appendix
are not identified or described in the application.
10. Under item VID, state how the study data will be destroyed.
11. The response to item VIIA does not adequately address risks in relation to anticipated benefits,
12. Item VIIE does not adequately address safeguards regarding psychological risks. Access to
counseling might be indicated here. Also indicate if the surveys will be administered anonymously.
13. On the Informed Consent form students who live off campus are referred to the National Suicide
Prevention Hotline as a counseling resource while students who live on campus are referred to the NSU
Counseling center. The counseling services are available to all enrolled NSU students.
14. The Debriefing form should be written in past tense and include all items in the Informed Consent
form.
15. Under item IIIA, explain how students that are under 18 years of age, a vulnerable population, will be
excluded from the study.


McGregor, K., The effects of Caffeine Usage on 2,000 Meter Test performance in collegiate Rowers,
(application no. 03.11.024)
Votes: 8, Conditional = 6, Revise and Resubmit = 2. Conditional Approval.

Conditions:
1. The response to item IIA includes a weight requirement for inclusion in the study. State how weight
will be validated. This is important because the amount of caffeine supplement that will be given is based
on weight.
2. Under item IIID, state why males are excluded.
3. In items VA and VIID, the responses refer to 9 ml of caffeine per 0.1 kg body weight. This dosage in
ml is unclear and cannot be compared to the other amounts of caffeine listed, which are in mg. Please
address this discrepancy. Also, under this item, identify the specific caffeine supplement will be
administered and who will administer it.
4. The response to item VA indicates a pre-test (rowing test?) will be given. The timing and
administration of the test need to be explained more clearly.
5. Under item VID, indicate how data will be destroyed after five years.
6. Under item VIIA, clarify how the study results relate to the creation of "faster boats on the water."
7. Under item VIIE, explain how the psychological risk will be eliminated or minimized. Address the
possible need for counseling services.
8. The Informed Consent is missing several parts: title of the study, faculty sponsor’s name and
affiliation, detailed description of what the participants will have to do, a statement explaining who will
have access to the data, name and address of counseling center if needed, a statement addressing
participation or non-participation and the effect on grades.
9. The Informed Consent indicates that the rowing coach will be involved in the study. Clarify the
involvement of the coach and justify why a certificate for the Protecting Human Research Participants
course is not included for the coach or provide the certificate. Also, either identify the “other people on
the research team” or remove this statement.
10. The duration of the study is unclear. Paragraph 4 of the Informed Consent indicates it will last for the
remainder of the semester, but the response to item VA indicates a one-time test.
11. The Debriefing form is missing some of the information in the Informed Consent.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:9/30/2012
language:English
pages:7