Establishing Consumer Protections for Research in Human Service Agencies
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.
KeywordsConsumer 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.
- American Psychological Association. (2013). Guidelines and principles for accreditation of programs in professional psychology. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/policies/guiding-principles.pdf
- 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
- Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2015). Professional and ethical compliance code for behavior analysts. Retrieved from http://bacb.com/ethics-code
- Connelly, L. M. (2014). Ethical considerations in research studies. Medsurg Nursing, 23, 54–55.Google Scholar
- Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Columbus: Pearson.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Protection of Human Subjects (2009) 45 C.F.R. § 46.101–46.505.Google Scholar
- 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
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections. (2016a). The Belmont Report. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
- 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 http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/common-rule/
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections. (2016c). Guidance on continuing review. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/guidance-on-continuing-review-2010/
- 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 http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/reviewing-unanticipated-problems/#.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections. (2016e). Guidance on the use of expedited review procedures. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/guidance-on-expedited-review-procedures/
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections. (2016f). Informed consent FAQs. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/informed-consent/