Case study 2 set out to try and determine a link between “traumatic childhood experiences and the effect on interpersonal relationships in adulthood”. While the participants were selected at random, they all came from a correctional facility which I feel could potentially skew the data as not all persons with traumatic experiences as kids would potentially find themselves incarcerated. All participates were given the opportunity to decline or to participate in the study, and informed consent was retrieved, so at least the data will be given willingly. The detailed questionnaire given would be able to differentiate so that there would hopefully be a sampling of all different demographics presented for the study. Assessing the type of trauma experiences by these participates and their interpersonal relationship behaviors should give them detailed information to complete the study with required data.
Benefits of this study could potential allow us to determine ways to help young children (society) cope with the traumatic experiences they have faced. This could allow for a different outcome than those that did/do not receive the same type of care. The benefit for the research participant could be that talking with someone may allow them to process thoughts and concerns that they have kept locked inside for a very long time, whether this would actually allow for healing or change would be had to determine. I feel that it would potentially benefit the researcher in a couple different ways. One the researcher would potentially gain significant data to help others. Another way this could affect the researcher could be that it gives them new insight into the person they are interviewing rather than placing judgment.
Risks of this study could include that there isn’t a wide enough set of participates (those not incarcerated) and the study is done on subjective data rather than objective data. I feel this could potentially make the data unreliable or hard to duplicate. For the person interviewing the incarcerated participate they could potentially be at risk doing face-to-face interviews. While it would likely be uncommon due to guard staff being on duty, it would be possible for something to happen. I don’t know that I can say I feel that there would be a direct risk to society, other than trying to determine how one person reacts to something and then trying to make a standard of care based upon that would likely be ineffective as every person would handle things differently. There could also be risks to how the data is managed and stored, as well as if any data was altered by those receiving the information from the participants.
The level of IRB approval that would be needed would be a Full Board Review, in my opinion. I feel this would be the case due to it being a “non-minimal risk project”. According to John Carroll University, a Non-minimal risk project investigates “sexual orientation, substance abuse, eating disorders, religious identity, illegal activities, veteran or wartime experiences, etc.”.
Chapter 4: Assessing Risks and Potential Benefits and Evaluating Vulnerability (Research Involving Human Participants V1). (n.d.). Retrieved January 27, 2020, from https://www.onlineethics.org/cms/8033.aspx
STEP ONE: Before You Begin: INVESTIGATORS’ GUIDE. (n.d.). Retrieved January 27, 2020, from https://jcu.edu/research/irb/investigators-guide/step-one-you-begin
Note: Support your risk/benefit standpoints with the literature. See this week’s course announcement for ideas!
Amy,
I hadn’t considered that the self-reported early trauma is essentially subjective, but you are right. All psychological phenomena are subjective and the experience is unique to the individual, making it difficult to compare traumatic experiences and effects between people. There are other factors, like personal resilience, that mitigate the effect of trauma. Trauma itself is subjective in nature and hard to compare across variations in sources, types, and severity. Unless the trauma was verified somehow, the investigator has on the participant’s assertion that the events even took place or occurred in the way they claim. If participants weren’t honest and accurate in their recall, the results of this study would be compromised.
I agree that a full Institutional Review Board review would be required automatically due to the proposed use of prisoners, who are considered a vulnerable population (U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 2003).
Resource
U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 45 CFR 46.305, 306 (2003) Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/prisoner-research-ohrp-guidance-2003/index.html