IRB: Ethics & Human Research
IRB Requirements and Review Processes: Criminal Justice Faculty Members’ Compliance and Satisfaction
There has been little quantitative research on assessment of researchers’ satisfaction with their institutional review boards (IRBs) and of their compliance with regulatory and IRB requirements for research with humans. This article reports on a survey involving researchers who are members of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences to determine their level of compliance with IRB procedures both before and after they received IRB approval for their studies. The survey used some of the questions from a study by Liddle and Brazelton of researchers in psychology departments. We found that with regard to seven activities related to practices involving research with humans, nearly all of the criminal justice researchers who responded to our survey indicated that they complied with those practices. Our study results provide support for Liddle and Brazelton’s finding that researcher satisfaction with IRBs is associated with the odds of compliance with IRBs’ human research requirements. Respondents with higher levels of satisfaction with their IRBs had lower odds of committing infractions of their IRBs’ rules, even after controlling for levels of respondents’ research activity. This is an important finding since it could help to shape how IRBs can intervene and play a role in facilitating a smooth, productive relationship with their institutions’ researchers. If IRBs can increase satisfaction, compliance may also increase.
Christine Tartaro and Marissa P. Levy. “IRB Requirements and Review Process: Criminal Justice Faculty Members’ Compliance and Satisfaction.” IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2015; 37(1):12-16.