Blackboard comments:

Document Sample
Blackboard comments: Powered By Docstoc
					Human Subjects Institutional Review Board
October 18, 2005
Minutes

Members present: Mr. Fred Clark (special representative for prisoner interests), Drs. Keith
Dromm, Marcelline Fusilier Catherine Hansen, Susan Pierce, Raquel Wilson. Members
submitting votes electronically: Drs. Sam Coker, Susan Molstad, Frances Pearson. Voting
members absent: Drs. Patrice Moulton, Janette Ralston, Lisa Abney.

I. Minutes of IRB June 9, 2005 meeting.
Motion to approve: Dr. Hanson
Second: Dr. Dromm
Motion passed.

II. Proposals for Review

Shannon S. Gresham #09.05.002 Expedited Review Proposal.
Sexual Offender Defensiveness: Is the Type of Offense or Intelligence Relevant?

Vote: Revise and resubmit = 8 (includes those cast at the IRB meeting and electronically).
Revise and resubmit
Mr. Fred Clark, former Chairman of the Louisiana State Parole Board, sat in as a special added
member of the IRB for this proposal. He served as prisoner representative.
Conditions:
    1) Clarify the explanation of the study’s design.
            a. Identify the number of groups involved and the number of participants in each.
            b. Identify the independent and dependent variables.
            c. Specify from where and how the control group will be recruited.
    2) Identify the questionnaires and scales used for measuring each of the study variables.
    3) Obtain copyright holder and author permission for use of standardized questionnaires for
        research purposes.
    4) Check the “yes” blank for Item #15 on the application form.
    5) Obtain Informed Consent from the participants to use their records for research
        purposes.
    6) Explanation of the study and informed consent must be presented in language which is
        understandable to the prisoner subject population.
    7) Prisoners must be assured that the Parole Board will not take research participation into
        account.
    8) With regard to the application section VIII. B., a letter from the facility should be provided
        that assures that IRB approved procedures will be followed.


Joy Moser IRB# 09.05.001 Expedited Review Proposal.
Father-daughter attachment effects on relationship satisfaction of College Women.
Vote: Conditional = 7 (includes those cast at the IRB meeting and electronically).
Conditional Approval
Conditions:
    1) Make Sections IV. B. and VII. B. of the application consistent concerning extra credit
        points for participants.
    2) Provide a local address for the investigator.
    3) Check the “yes” blank for Item #15 on the application form.
    4) Obtain copyright holder and author permission for use of the questionnaires. If the
        instruments are in the public domain, evidence should be provided.
    5) Include a project title on the informed consent form.
Brandon Richard #06.05.003 Expedited Review Proposal - Resubmitted.
The effects of teacher personality traits on student ratings of instructional quality.
Vote: Revise and Resubmit = 6; Conditional = 1 (includes those cast at the IRB meeting and
electronically).
Revise and Resubmit
Suggestions (not all inclusive)
    1) Provide completion certificates for the Human Participant Protections Education for
        Research Teams online course for those authorized by the principal investigator to obtain
        informed consent. See the IRB website (http://www.nsula.edu/graduateschool/hsirb.asp).
    2) Provide evidence of permission for the study from the University Provost.
    3) Clarify the study’s design.
             a. With regard to Section II. A. of the application form, specify the type archival data
                 to be collected.
             b. The projected time demand of five to ten minutes for participants to complete a
                 41 item questionnaire appears misleading. Provide a more realistic estimate.
    4) Devise a method for maintaining confidentiality of data from different sources. With
        regard to Section VII. C. of the application, acknowledge and address the potential risk of
        loss of confidentiality.
    5) Concerning Section VII.E.of the application, there is reference to the availability of
        therapists. It is unlikely that this service will be necessary, therefore reference to it
        should be deleted so as not to create an expectation.
    6) Revise the Informed Consent form such that it includes the information specified in
        Section X. B. of the application. Specifically, the following should be added to the
        present Informed Consent form:
             a. Investigator and sponsor contact information.
             b. A statement that the information will not be used for faculty retention decisions.
             c. A statement of benefit to subjects even if there is none directly.
             d. Change the statement of "no personal information." Names will appear on the
                 faculty evaluations.
             e. Clarify points #5 and 8 on the Informed Consent form.
    7) Provide more information on the study’s purpose on the Debriefing form.
    8) Change the start date of the study.

III. New business

Follow-up for proposals that are past their completion dates.
A number of previously approved studies are past their completion dates but the investigators
have not submitted final reports. The consensus of the board was for the chair to send letters to
investigators and sponsors of these projects. The purpose being to encourage submission of
project final reports or continuance requests so as to complete the proposal files.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:10/1/2012
language:Unknown
pages:2