Behavior Analysis in Practice

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 445–455 | Cite as

Establishing Consumer Protections for Research in Human Service Agencies

  • Linda A. LeBlancEmail author
  • Melissa R. Nosik
  • Anna Petursdottir
Discussion and Review Paper


Conducting research in practice settings is the primary mechanism for establishing a strong foundation of evidence for clinical decision making. In behavior analysis, this type of research frequently originates from university-based systems that have established institutional review boards. Independent human service agencies that want to contribute applied research to the literature base that is clinically meaningful and conducted in an ethical fashion must establish a research review committee (RRC). The purpose of this article is to provide information and guidance for establishing and maintaining the activity of an RRC in a human service setting.


Consumer protection Human service agencies Institutional review board Research 



The authors wish to thank the members of the Trumpet Behavioral Health Research Review Committee who serve or have served along with Linda A. LeBlanc and Anna Petursdottir (Paige Raetz, Lani Fritts, Chris Miller, and Amber Valentino) for their contributions to establishing and sustaining the oversight committee that inspired this article.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding this article. In addition, human or animal participants were not used for this research, so informed consent was not necessary. The content of this article does not represent an official position of the Behavior Analyst Certification Board.


  1. American Psychological Association. (2013). Guidelines and principles for accreditation of programs in professional psychology. Retrieved from
  2. Baker, D. B., & Benjamin, L. T. (2000). The affirmation of the scientist-practitioner: A look back at Boulder. American Psychologist, 55, 241–247. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow, S. C., Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, R. O. (1984). The scientist practitioner: research and accountability in clinical and educational settings. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2015). Professional and ethical compliance code for behavior analysts. Retrieved from
  5. Byerly, W. G. (2009). Working with the institutional review board. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 66, 176–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carr, J. E., & Nosik, M. R. (2017). Professional credentialing of practicing behavior analysts. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 3–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cassarett, D., Karlawish, J. H., & Sugarman, J. (2000). Determining when quality improvement initiatives should be considered research: proposed criteria and potential implications. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, 2275–2280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charania, S., LeBlanc, L. A., Sabanathan, N., Ktaech, I., Carr, J. E., & Gunby, K. (2010). Teaching children with autism when to raise a hand during group instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 493–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Connelly, L. M. (2014). Ethical considerations in research studies. Medsurg Nursing, 23, 54–55.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Columbus: Pearson.Google Scholar
  11. Fouka, G., & Mantzorou, M. (2011). What are the ethical issues in conducting research? Is there conflict between research ethics and the nature of nursing? Health Science Journal, 5, 3–14.Google Scholar
  12. Gunby, K. V., Carr, J. E., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2010). Teaching abduction prevention skills to children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hayes, S. C., Barlow, D. H., & Nelson-Grey, R. O. (1999). The scientist practitioner: research and accountability in the age of managed care. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  14. Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Klitzman, R. (2012). Institutional review board community members: Who are they, what do they do, and whom do they represent? Academic Medicine, 87, 975–981. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. LeJeune, J. T., & Luoma, J. B. (2015). The integrated scientist-practitioner: A new model for combining research and clinical practice in fee-for-service settings. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 46, 421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Love, J. R., Carr, J. E., LeBlanc, L. A., & Kisamore, A. N. (2013). Training behavioral research methods to staff in an early and intensive behavioral intervention setting: A program description and preliminary evaluation. Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marchese, N. V., Carr, J. E., LeBlanc, L. A., Rosati, T. C., & Conroy, S. A. (2012). The effects of the question “What is this?” on tact-training outcomes of children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 539–547. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2014). Essentials of nursing research: Appraising evidence for nursing practice (8th ed.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  20. Protection of Human Subjects (2009) 45 C.F.R. § 46.101–46.505.Google Scholar
  21. Protection of Human Subjects: Categories of Research That May Be Reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) Through an Expedited Review Procedure (1998) 63 Fed. Reg.Google Scholar
  22. Stricker, G., & Trierweiler, S. J. (1995). The local clinical scientist. A bridge between science and practice. American Psychologist, 50, 995–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections. (2016a). The Belmont Report. Retrieved from
  24. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections. (2016b). Federal policy for the protection of human subjects (‘Common Rule’). Retrieved from
  25. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections. (2016c). Guidance on continuing review. Retrieved from
  26. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections. (2016d). Guidance on reviewing and reporting unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others and adverse events. Retrieved from
  27. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections. (2016e). Guidance on the use of expedited review procedures. Retrieved from
  28. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections. (2016f). Informed consent FAQs. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda A. LeBlanc
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Melissa R. Nosik
    • 3
  • Anna Petursdottir
    • 4
  1. 1.Trumpet Behavioral HealthLakewoodUSA
  2. 2.LeBlanc Behavioral ConsultingGoldenUSA
  3. 3.Behavior Analyst Certification BoardLittletonUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyTexas Christian UniversityFort WorthUSA

Personalised recommendations