[Vpaaetal] IRB Annual Report-2005 .doc

[Academic Affairs]

IRB Annual Report for 2005

 

Dr. Tracy Henley, Department of Psychology and Special Education, chairs the
Institutional Review Board and prepares an annual report for the campus.
Natalie Henderson, Office of Graduate Studies and Research, maintains and
assembles IRB data and serves as IRB point of contact and archivist.
Members of the Board are Jena Hamra, Jon Jonz, Srinivas Nippani, JoAnn
DiGeorgio-Lutz, Rick Balkin and Mary McDaniel (community member). Mary
Hendrix and Pat Prapan serve as ad hoc members when their expertise is
needed. Dr. Henley's report follows.

*     *     *

This is the second "annual" report filed. The previous report actually
covered 16 months and logged 130 protocols (8.125 per month). This year, in
12 months there were 108 protocols (9.0 per month) for a modest increase in
human subjects research activities; or alternatively, better compliance with
submission requirements. In either case, this increase should be viewed
positively.

 

1.Total Number of Protocols Submitted        Since January 2005
108

Number of Protocols Approved
86

Number of Protocols Rejected
0

Number of Protocols Currently "Suspended" until revisions are made
0

Number of Protocols Withdrawn or otherwise "inactive" [1]
3

Number of Protocols submitted but determined not to be Human Subjects [2]
9

Number of Protocols Pending on 01-08-05[3]
10__

 

Table Notes:

[1] At times researchers notify us that they have decided to postpone, or
otherwise not conduct, the research they previously submitted. 

[2] As is appropriate, researchers using archival data submit to the IRB so
that we can determine if their work is exempt from Federal regulations (CFR
45-46). Nine projects were determined to fall beyond the scope of the IRB
given that they used anonymous archival data (e.g., census data) or involved
an analysis of extant public records (e.g., enrollment reports from a public
school).

[3] This number is always "high" at the start of the year as many
researchers submit over the break. 

 

 

2. Breakdown by Department of the PI

Department                                                     Total
Student            Faculty/Staff

Agricultural Science                                          4          3
1

Business Administration                         5          1
4

Computer Science and Information Systems        2
2

Counseling                                                        9
3                      6

Educational Administration                                 21         17
4

Elementary Education                                        12         9
3

Health, Kinesiology & Sports Studies                  3
3

History                                                             1
1

Industrial Engineering                                        1          1

Institutional Effectiveness                                  1
1

Literature and Language                                    6          4
2

Psychology and Special Education                      19         12
7

Secondary and Higher Education                        17         15
2
Social Work                                                      5
1                      4

Sociology                                                          1
1

Proposals from Outside the University                1          1


 

 

 

As noted last year, there is some under-reporting in the last category. We
always have a couple of projects initiated from off-campus (and/or approved
by other IRBs). Given that these do not involve our faculty/students as
investigators they are not as easily "tracked" by our procedures.

 

3. Breakdown by submitter status:

Number of Faculty/Staff Protocols submitted      40         

Number of Student Protocols submitted              68

 

Procedurally, proposals are triaged into three categories commonly called:
administrative, expedited and full board. Federal law (CFR 45-46) dictates
these categories, and allows for the IRB chair (or an appropriate designee)
to handle the first two categories but requires that a duly constituted full
board review certain protocols (e.g., such as those working with minors).
The TAMU-Commerce Board meets on an as-needed basis, roughly once each
month. The full board considered 13 different proposals in 2005. As
previewed in last year's report, the IRB stepped-up its formal and informal
training in 2005. All new faculty were trained as part of Fall orientation,
and additionally 25 faculty participated in a 3-hour training workshop, with
another 13 completing an online IRB training course.

 

In conclusion, I am again most pleased to report that we have had no adverse
incidents, or substantial issues of non-compliance. In short, nothing
happened that we were obligated to report to any Federal agency or for
administrative attention. From my perspective as Committee Chair everything
appears to be "on track," and let me again hasten to add that much of this
owes directly to the efforts of Natalie Henderson. In 2006, the IRB needs to
continue in its efforts to provide both informal and formal training to as
many faculty and students as is possible.  

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Tracy Henley, IRB Chair

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.tamuc.edu/pipermail/vpaaetal/attachments/20060201/576e3272/attachment.htm