Cross-cultural validation of the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool: Chinese Version
-
Published:2021-09-28
Issue:1
Volume:22
Page:
-
ISSN:1472-6939
-
Container-title:BMC Medical Ethics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:BMC Med Ethics
Author:
Liu Xing,Wu Ying,Yang Min,Li Yang,Hahne Jessica,Khoshnood Kaveh,Coleman Linda,Wang Xiaomin
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Using an effective method for evaluating Institutional Review Board (IRB) performance is essential for ensuring an IRB’s effectiveness, efficiency, and compliance with applicable human research standards and organizational policies. Currently, no empirical research has yet been published in China evaluating IRB performance measures by the use of a standardized tool. This study was therefore conducted to develop a Chinese version of the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool (IRB-RAT), assess the psychometric properties of the Chinese version (IRB-RAT-CV), and validate the tool for use in China.
Methods
In this cultural adaptation, cross-sectional validation study, the IRB-RAT-CV was developed through a back-translation process and then distributed to 587 IRB staff members and researchers in medical institutions and schools in Hunan Province that review biomedical and social-behavioral research. Data from the 470 valid questionnaires collected from participants was used to evaluate the reliability, content validity, and construct validity of the IRB-RAT-CV.
Results
Participants’ ratings of their ideal and actual IRB as measured by the IRB-RAT-CV achieved Cronbach's alpha 0.989 and 0.992, Spearman-Brown coefficient 0.964 and 0.968, and item-total correlation values ranging from 0.631 to 0.886 and 0.743 to 0.910, respectively.
Conclusion
The IRB-RAT-CV is a linguistically and culturally applicable tool for assessing the quality of IRBs in China.
Funder
Major Scientific and Technological Projects for Collaborative Prevention and Control of Birth Defects in Hunan Province
NIH Fogarty International Center Masters Level Bioethics Program at Central South University in Changsha, China
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Health(social science),Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference40 articles.
1. WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical research involving human subjects. 64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/. Accessed 21 Aug 2021.
2. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1). International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. 2016. http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines/efficacy/article/efficacy-guidelines.html. Accessed 21 August 2021.
3. World Health Organization. Standards and operational guidance for ethics review of health-related research with human participants. World Health Organization. 2011. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44783. Accessed 21 Aug 2021.
4. International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans, Fourth Edition. Geneva. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). 2016. https://cioms.ch/publications/product/international-ethical-guidelines-for-health-related-research-involving-humans/. Accessed 21 Aug 2021.
5. Yarborough M. Do we really know how many clinical trials are conducted ethically? Why research ethics committee review practices need to be strengthened and initial steps we could take to strengthen them. J Med Ethics. 2021;2020(47):572–9.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献