What Is The Purpose And Function Of An Institutional Review
What Is The Purpose And Function Of An Institutional Review Board
An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a committee responsible for reviewing, approving, and monitoring research involving human subjects to ensure ethical standards and participant safety are maintained. Its primary function is to protect the rights and welfare of research participants while facilitating ethical research practices.
Paper For Above instruction
The purpose of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) is to safeguard the ethical integrity of research involving human participants. It evaluates research protocols to ensure risks are minimized, informed consent is appropriately obtained, and participant confidentiality is maintained. The IRB functions as an independent body that reviews research proposals before approval, monitors ongoing research, and ensures compliance with regulations such as those mandated by federal agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). By doing so, it aims to prevent unethical practices in research, such as coercion, exploitation, or harm to participants. Additionally, the IRB provides guidance to researchers on ethical considerations and ensures that research practices align with established ethical guidelines, including the Belmont Report principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Its overarching goal is to balance the generation of valuable scientific knowledge with the protection of individual rights, fostering public trust in research activities.
Differences Between Deductive and Inductive Reasoning in Research
Deductive reasoning involves starting with a general theory or hypothesis and then collecting data to test its validity, moving from broad principles to specific observations. Conversely, inductive reasoning begins with specific data or phenomena and develops broader generalizations or theories based on observed patterns. Deductive approaches are often associated with quantitative research, while inductive methods are typical of qualitative research, allowing researchers to generate new theories from data.
Disadvantages of a Convenience Sample
A convenience sample, which involves selecting easily accessible participants, may lead to biased results because it may not represent the entire population. This sampling method limits the generalizability of findings and can compromise the study’s external validity. It also increases the risk of sampling bias, as the sample may share similar characteristics unrelated to the research question, thus affecting the reliability and applicability of the conclusions drawn.
Example of a Data Collection Method
An example of a data collection method is conducting interviews, which allow researchers to gather in-depth insights into participants' experiences, attitudes, or perceptions through open-ended questions. Interviews are particularly useful for qualitative research, providing rich, detailed data that help understand complex phenomena.
Difference Between Internal and External Validity
Internal validity refers to the extent to which a study accurately establishes a causal relationship between variables, free from bias or confounding factors. External validity concerns the generalizability of the study findings to other settings, populations, or times. High internal validity ensures confidence in the results within the study, while high external validity indicates the applicability of findings beyond the study context.
Grounded Theory Research and Its Use
Grounded theory research is a qualitative methodology aimed at developing theories grounded in real-world data. It involves collecting and analyzing data simultaneously to identify patterns and concepts, leading to the emergence of new theories. This approach is best used when little is known about a phenomenon, and the goal is to generate new, data-driven hypotheses that can explain complex social processes or behaviors.
Assessing Usability of Research Knowledge for Clinical Practice
Nurses can determine the usability of research findings for clinical practice by evaluating the study’s relevance, rigor, and applicability. They should consider whether the research design was robust, whether the findings are statistically and clinically significant, and if the patient population studied resembles their own patients. Critical appraisal skills help nurses integrate evidence effectively into practice to improve patient outcomes.
References
- Fletcher, R. H., et al. (2018). Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
- Resnik, D. B. (2018). The Ethics of Research with Human Subjects: Protecting Participants in Biomedical Research. Springer.
- Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2020). Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice. Wolters Kluwer.
- Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2019). Essentials of Nursing Research: Appraising Evidence for Nursing Practice. Wolters Kluwer.
- Holloway, I., & Galvin, K. (2016). Qualitative Research in Nursing and Healthcare. Wiley.
- Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage Publications.
- Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications.
- Patten, M. L. (2017). cuantitative Methods in Health Research. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
- LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2018). Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice. Elsevier.
- Grbich, C. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction. Sage Publications.