The IRB is addressing issues of methodology not protection of human subjects.
The researcher should simply explain the logic of the methodology and why the proposed plan will provide the least confounded data. The researcher should also explain why the requested changes would confound the results and thereby elimminate any benefit from this study, nullifying the benefits/risk advantage. As a former IRB chair, it sounds ludicrous to me. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 08:48:25 -0400 >From: Steven Specht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [tips] IRB >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> > >Dear TIPsters, >Argh! I need some help. A colleague of mine submitted a study for >approval by our IRB. She proposed a pre-/post- design to assess >students' attitudes before and after a particular chemistry lab >experience. I can provide more detail if necessary, but the point is >fairly straight-forward. The IRB rejected her proposal and told her >that she should use a different assessment instrument before (i.e., >pre-) and after (i.e., post-). They also told her that instead of a >Likert scale, she should use open-ended questions. >#1 - Changing the assessment tool from pre- to post- certainly >introduces a serious confounding variable, imho >#2 - Although an open-ended (qualitative?) assessment might be useful, >there is nothing wrong with asking the same questions using Likert >scales (and shouldn't this be a decision that the researcher makes? > >With regard to concern #1, I am having a bit of difficulty finding >information specifically which addresses this issue (since it is so >fundamental, in terms of confounding). Does anyone have any specific >information from a source which indicates that the same instrument >should be used to avoid confounding the research? > >Thank you. > >-S > > >======================================================== >Steven M. Specht, Ph.D. >Associate Professor of Psychology >Utica College >Utica, NY 13502 >(315) 792-3171 > >"Mice may be called large or small, and so may elephants, and it is >quite understandable when someone says it was a large mouse that ran up >the trunk of a small elephant" (S. S. Stevens, 1958) > >--- ---
