Case Study 2
Selection of subjects for research from a random sample of 30 participants in a correctional facility may not produce an adequate final sample size for study. Incarcerated individuals make up a vulnerable population that have a greater risk potential than other types of populations. Perhaps not all of the 30 participants randomly chosen will meet the inclusion criteria. It seems reasonable to assume not all prisoners have had a traumatic childhood experience, which would exclude them from the proposed study: analysis of the relationship between traumatic childhood experiences and the effects of interpersonal relationships in adulthood. Risk to the researcher include possibly two few participants to adequately analyze the relationship desired. Assuming the IRB approves the case study, it seems that it would be difficult to prove a benefit to the health and wellbeing of the study subjects. Will consent be deemed informed. The researcher risks a breach of subjects’ rights. The IRB may require modifications to proposed study to comply with ethical standards of human subject treatment. In person interviews help with a more accurate screening and capture verbal and non-verbal cues, emotions, and behaviors. A drawback to an in-person interview might rest in the quality data collected by the interviewer. (DeFranzo, 2014). The benefits for the researcher might include information to develop council to support prisoners suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome related to childhood experiences that cause relationship issues in adulthood.
For a prisoner interview study, a Full-Board IRB review is required for a non-minimal risk project. A project review is required for oral history projects for risk of harm or loss of privacy to the subject. The topic of traumatic childhood experiences recalled in a face to face interview has potential to cause distress to the subject. (Types of IRB Review, n.d.). A Full-Board IRB review is required in any study utilizing prisoners whom require special protections and safeguards. In addition to a Full-Board IRB review, other agencies may need to monitor and authorize proposed study involving prisoners.
If an informed consent is obtained from potential study participants, can confidentiality be guaranteed? Even when steps are taken to protect confidentiality within the study, gossip in the prison system cannot be controlled. (Evans, 2017). Is the risk of participation worth the potential knowledge gain to society? Perhaps there is a goal within this study to improve the health and wellbeing of prisoners somehow with the information gained. Human research in prison populations traditionally has raised ethical concerns that the incarcerated may be pressured to participate in clinical research. A consent must be obtained with an absence of coercive influences. Outside forces such as prison guards may discourage participation in studies. (Evans, 2017).
Society might gain background information that would explain how adult interpersonal relationships lead to criminal behaviors in relation to previous trauma. Perhaps from the prisoner interviews there would be a common link that could be examined to determine how to better medically care for children after traumatic experiences, so that they can learn coping skills to overcome roadblocks to healthy interpersonal relationships as adults.
I see the IRB board approval and monitoring process of human studies to be essential to determining and ensuring people are treated ethically and with dignity. Countless examples of unethical treatment of study participants are disheartening. For an IRB board to govern prison studies, there must also be a prisoner on the board. It seems the best ideas and critiques come from piers.
References
Defranzo, S. (2014). Advantages and disadvantages of face-to-face data collection. SnapSurveys.com
Evans, G. (2017). Using prisoners as research subjects raises ethical concerns. IRB Advisor: Atlanta Vol. 17, Iss. 6
Types of IRB Review (n.d.). http://sites.jcu.edu/research/pages/irb/review/review-types/).
Karen,
Well written post. I had no idea what the IRB board entailed until this class. I honestly didn’t know that it was actually a thing. What are your thoughts on the IRB board personally? I think that it is essential for determining and ensuring people are treated fairly and ethically. I found this article that talked about a couple cases where IRB board was essential. What are you thoughts on it?
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/history-and-role-institutional-review-boards-useful-tension/2009-04
Moon, M. R. (2018, April 1). The History and Role of Institutional Review Boards: A Useful Tension. Retrieved June 10, 2020, from https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/history-and-role-institutional-review-boards-useful-tension/2009-04
Thank you for your kind comments on my post. I too had not ever heard of the IRB before this class. I found it very sad to read of instances of human subject mistreatment that has occurred in the United States where I thought the law prevented abuse of human subjects in research. To me the 1974 Research Act occurred not that long ago. I remember 1974 as if it was yesterday. I am thankful for the board review of biometric and behavioral research. I myself am quite conservative and at times find processes for biometric studies to be unethical. However I feel much better about the process of human studies knowing that more than 1 person reviewed and discussed the ethical treatment of study subjects in an IRB board prior to a study being approved. I am glad that much effort is put forth to protect vulnerable populations and that voluntary consent must be obtained from study subjects. (The Institutional Review Board, n.d.). I also did find out that the hospital that I work for does have its own IRB.
http://sites.jcu.edu/research/pages/irb/review/review-types/).
The Institutional Review Board,
Hi Karen,
You have a wonderfully crafted post on your case study. I do agree that this case study researches a very sensitive subject with a very vulnerable population and would require a full IRB to ensure that no ethical standards are violated. Additionally, a full IRB review level would be required because there is a greater than minimal risk for psychological harm(hhs.gov). Although this study would likely correlate traumatic experiences with incarceration, the study itself has a very small sample size and may not be a good representation of the total population. I agree that the research done would yield very valuable information regarding the relationship in demographics, traumatic experiences and incarceration and could possibly provide a great benefit to society identifying risk factors.
Reference:
https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/guidance-on-approving-research-involving-prisoners/index.html
Thank-you JJ for your comments on my post. I found the definition of minimal risk from the resource that you used, to clearly define minimal risk. I don’t think case study-2 would be eligible for study as it is currently defined. I believe the risk of emotional turmoil is greater than than what a prisoner study subject would encounter in daily life.
“A Minimal risk means that the probability and magnitude of harm or
discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of
themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the
performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or
tests.” (hhs.gov).
Reference:
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance-on-approving-research=involving-prisoners/index.html
I think you did a great job on your case study, it was very thorough and well thought out. I also had case study 2 and after I read yours I went back to do a little more research on sample size. I had thought it was small at first, but remembered that 30 was some magic number in statistics as far as sample size. It turns out it applies more to quantitative research and there are differing opinions on the actual sample size of quantitative research. The article from BMC Medical Research found that a sample size of 50 or more may be too big. I was surprised by this seemingly small number, but the rationale makes sense. They found that the more in depth information was the important factor in interview studies and that if there were too many subjects they would not extract as much information from each one.
Vasileiou, K., Barnett, J., Thorpe, S. et al. Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med Res Methodol 18, 148 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7
https://rdcu.be/b4Qws
Thank-you for looking into sample size! That is quite interesting that a size of 50 is considered too large for a quantitative study! I did not think to research adequate sample size. Less than 30 for a final sample just seemed too small to me for a qualitative study. “Sample sizes in qualitative research tends to be small in order to support the depth of case-orientated analysis that is fundamental to this mode of inquiry.” (Konstantina, V., Barnett, J., Young, T., et al, 2018).
Reference:
Konstantina, V., Barnett, J., Young, T. et al. (2018). Characterizing and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systemic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com
I thought so too. Good to know moving forward!
Good analysis!