Academic psychologists' perspectives on the human research ethics review process

Australian Psychologist

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 57-62

  Malouff, John M ^a   Schutte, Nicola S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23944494636     PISSN: 00050067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00050060512331317166     Document Type: Review

References (19)

1. Australian Research Ethics Committee (2002). Human research ethics handbook: Commentary on the National Statement on ethical conduct. Canberra: Author.
2. Azar, B. (2002, February). Ethics at the cost of research? American Psychological Society Observer. Retrieved 29 July, 2003, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/ethicscost.html
3. Brookhart, S. (2001). IRBs and the review of psychological research. American Psychological Society Observer, 14, 1, 7-8.
4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Council, J. R., Smith, E. J., Kaster-Bundgaard, J., & Gladue, B. A. (1999). Interactions concerning risky research: Investigators rate their IRBs (and vice versa). In G. Garvin, & R. E. Landrum (Eds.), Protecting human subjects: Departmental subjects pools and institutional review boards (pp. 183-199). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6. Davidson, G., Garton, A. F., & Joyce, M. (2003). Surveys of ethics education in Australian university schools and departments of psychology. Australian Psychologist, 38, 216-222.
7. Ferraro, F. R., Szigeti, E., Dawes, K. J., & Pan, S. (1999). A survey regarding the University of North Dakota institutional review board: Data, attitudes, and perceptions. Journal of Psychology, 133, 272-280.
8. Grady, C. (2001). Money for research participation: Does it jeopardize informed consent? American Journal of Bioethics, 1, 40-44.
9. Hayes, G. J., Hayes, S. C., & Dykstra, T. (1995). A survey of university institutional review boards: Characteristics, policies, and procedures. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 17, 1-6.
10. Heads of Departments and Schools of Psychology Association (n.d.). Directory. Retrieved 1 July, 2003, from http://www.psych.sci.usq.edu.au/hodspa/directory.asp
11. Liddle, B. J., & Brazelton, E. W. (1996). Psychology faculty satisfaction and compliance with IRB procedures. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 18, 4-6.
12. Mueller, J. H., & Furedy, J. J. (2001, October). The IRB review system: how do we know it works? American Psychological Society Observer, 14. Retrieved 1 August, 2003, from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/1001/irbsystem.html
13. Murphy, G. L. (1999). A case study of a departmental subject pool and review board. In G. Garvin, & R. E. Landrum (Eds.), Protecting human subjects: Departmental subjects pools and institutional review boards (pp. 131-156). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
14. National Health and Medical Research Council (2001). National statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans preamble. Retrieved 1 August, 2003, from http://www.health.-gov.au/nhmrc/publications/humans/preamble.htm#Import
15. National Institutes of Health (n.d.). Is your research exempt from review? Retrieved 1 August, 2003, from http://obssr.od.nih.gov/IRB/isyour.htm
16. Oakes, J. M. (2002). Risks and wrongs in social science: An evaluator's guide to the IRB. Evaluation Review, 26, 443-479.
17. Penner, L. A. (2002). IRB and U: What institutional review boards are supposed to do. Dialogue: The official newsletter of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 17(1), 28-29.
18. Seligman, C., & Sorrentino, R. M. (2002). The control agenda in Canada's governance of ethical review of human research. Dialogue: The official newsletter of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 17(2), 22-24.
19. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Sydney, New South Wales: Allyn & Bacon.