Uvirb Form Iic2 Research Protocol Qualitative-Must Use

UVIRB FORM II(C2) 2015: RESEARCH PROTOCOL ASSESSMENT QUALITATIVE STUDY
09/28/2015
University of the Visayas

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
Corner Colon & Jakosalem Streets, Cebu City 6000, Philippines
Telephone: +63 (32) 416.7990; Email: uvirb2015@gmail.com
RESEARCH PROTOCOL ASSESSMENT FORM

QUALITATIVE STUDY
Instructions:
To the Principal Investigator: Please indicate in the space provided below whether or not the specified assessment point is addressed by your
study protocol to facilitate the evaluation of the assessment point. Indicate the page and paragraph where this information can be found.
To the Reviewer: Kindly evaluate how the assessment points outlined below have been appropriately addressed by the researcher protocol as
applicable. Please confirm the submitted information by putting your comments in the space provided under REVIEWER COMMENTS. Finalize
your review by indicating your conclusions under RECOMMENDED ACTION and sign the space provided by the reviewer.
Reference Number 2016 - _______
Protocol Title : ____________________________________________________________________
Authors:_________________________________________________________________________
Adviser: ___________________________________________________________________________
Panel Members: _____________________________________________________________________
1
09/28/2015


QUALITATIVE STUDY
RESEARCH PROTOCOL EVALUATION TO BE FILLED-OUT BY THE TO BE FILLED-OUT BY THE REVIEWER
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
OR PROPONENT
Indicate if the Page
protocol contains &paragraph
where it is
ASSESSMENT POINTS the specified found REVIEWER COMMENTS
point
YES NO N/A
PRE CHAPTER REQUIREMENTS
TITLE:
Is the title a good one, suggesting the key
phenomenon and the group or community under
study?
INTRODUCTION
Rationale:
Does the introduction present a clear exposition of
the topic?
Is the introduction supported by scholarly evidences?
Does the introduction reveal what is unknown?
Is the gap addressed?
PHILOSOPHICAL STANCE
Is the ontological assumptions explicitly
acknowledged and is it appropriate for the problem?
Is the epistemological assumptions explicitly
Is the axiological assumptions explicitly
Is the rhetoric assumptions explicitly acknowledged
and is it appropriate for the problem?
2
09/28/2015


QUALITATIVE STUDY
PROPONENT
where it is
point
YES NO N/A
Is the methodological assumptions explicitly
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Is the problem stated unambiguously, and is it easy
to identify?
Does the problem statement build a cogent,
persuasive argument for the new study?
Does the problem have signicance to the
profession?
Is there a good match between the research problem
on the one hand and the paradigm, tradition, and
methods on the other?
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Are research questions explicitly stated? If not, is
their absence justied?
Are the questions consistent with the studys
philosophical basis, underlying tradition, or
ideological orientation?
3
09/28/2015


QUALITATIVE STUDY
PROPONENT
where it is
point
YES NO N/A
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY AND COMMUNITY
CONSIDERATION
Does the problem have significance to the
profession?
Is there a review of the impact of the research on the
community where the research occurs?
Is there a clear statement to which findings are
linked?
Is there discussion on issues like stigma or drainage of
local capacity?
Is there discussion on sensitivity to cultural
traditions?
Is there involvement of the community in decision
about the conduct of the study?
4
09/28/2015


QUALITATIVE STUDY
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
Is the most rigorous possible design used, given the
study purpose?
Was an adequate amount of time spent in the field or

withstudy participants?
Did the design unfold in the field, giving researchers
opportunities to capitalize on early understandings?
Was there an adequate number of contacts with
study participants?
POPULATION AND SAMPLE
Was the group or population of interest adequately
described?
Is the population described?
Is the sample described in sufcient detail?
Is data saturation procedure/principle discussed?
Is there inclusion/exclusion criteria?
Are the inclusion/exclusion criteria developed for
safety concern?
Were the setting and sample described in sufficient
detail?
Was the approach used to recruit participants or gain
access to the site productive and appropriate?
Was the best possible method of sampling used to
enhance information richness and address the needs
of the study?
Was the sample size adequate to achieve saturation?
5
09/28/2015


QUALITATIVE STUDY
PROPONENT
where it is
point
YES NO N/A
DATA COLLECTION AND MEASUREMENT
Were the methods of gathering data appropriate?
Were data gathered through two or more methods to
achieve triangulation?
Did the researcher ask the right questions or make
the right observations, and were they recorded in an
appropriate fashion?
Was a sufficient amount of data gathered? Were the
data of sufficient depth and richness?
PROCEDURES
Are data collection and recording procedures
adequately described and do they appear
appropriate?
Were data collected in a manner that enhances
trustworthiness? If biases occur, was it acknowledged
and reported?
Was the staff that collected data appropriately
trained?
6
09/28/2015


QUALITATIVE STUDY
PROPONENT
where it is
point
YES NO N/A
ENHANCEMENT OF TRUSTWORTHINESS
Did the researchers use effective strategies to
enhance the trustworthiness/integrity of the study,
and was the description of those strategies
adequate?
Were the methods used to enhance trustworthiness
appropriate and sufficient?
Did the researcher document research procedures
and decision processes sufficiently that findings are
auditable and confirmable?
Is there evidence of researcher reflexivity?
Is there thick description of the context,
participants, and findings, and was it at a sufficient
level to support transferability?
DATA ANALYSIS
Are the data management and data analysis methods
sufficiently described?
Was the data analysis strategy compatible with the
research tradition and with the nature and type of
data gathered?
Did the analysis yield an appropriate product (e.g.,
a theory, taxonomy, thematic pattern)?
7
09/28/2015


QUALITATIVE STUDY

PROPONENT
where it is
point
YES NO N/A
Do the analytic procedures suggest the possibility of
biases?
to it in a cogent manner?
PI, ADVISER OR CONSULTANT QUALIFICATION
Is the PI Qualified?
If not, are there qualified advisers or consultant?
COLLABORATIVE STUDY TERMS OF REFERENCE
Is there a discussion of terms of collaboration?
- IP rights
- Publication rights
- Information
- Responsibility sharing or Terms of
Reference
- Transparency
- Capacity Building
8
09/28/2015


QUALITATIVE STUDY
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
EXEMPTED APPROVE
EXPEDITED MINOR MODIFICATIONS
FULL BOARD MAJOR MODIFICATIONS
DISAPPROVE
PENDING, IF MAJOR CLARIFICATION ARE REQUIRED BEFORE A DECISION CAN BE
MADE
JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION:
PRIMARY REVIEWER: RESEARCH ADVISER: RESEARCH INSTRUCTOR:
_____________________________________ ___________________________________ ____________________________________

(Print Name& Signature) (Print Name& Signature) (Print Name& Signature)
9
09/28/2015


QUALITATIVE STUDY
10

Uvirb Form Iic2 Research Protocol Qualitative-Must Use

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Uvirb Form Iic2 Research Protocol Qualitative-Must Use

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

UVIRB FORM II(C2) 2015: RESEARCH PROTOCOL ASSESSMENT QUALITATIVE STUDY

University of the Visayas

RESEARCH PROTOCOL ASSESSMENT FORM

Reference Number 2016 - _______

Protocol Title : ____________________________________________________________________

University of the Visayas

RESEARCH PROTOCOL ASSESSMENT FORM

University of the Visayas

RESEARCH PROTOCOL ASSESSMENT FORM

University of the Visayas

RESEARCH PROTOCOL ASSESSMENT FORM

University of the Visayas

RESEARCH PROTOCOL ASSESSMENT FORM

Was an adequate amount of time spent in the field or

University of the Visayas

RESEARCH PROTOCOL ASSESSMENT FORM

University of the Visayas

RESEARCH PROTOCOL ASSESSMENT FORM

University of the Visayas

RESEARCH PROTOCOL ASSESSMENT FORM

RESEARCH PROTOCOL EVALUATION TO BE FILLED-OUT BY THE TO BE FILLED-OUT BY THE REVIEWER

University of the Visayas

RESEARCH PROTOCOL ASSESSMENT FORM

JUSTIFICATION FOR RECOMMENDED ACTION:

PRIMARY REVIEWER: RESEARCH ADVISER: RESEARCH INSTRUCTOR:

_____________________________________ ___________________________________ ____________________________________

University of the Visayas

RESEARCH PROTOCOL ASSESSMENT FORM

Anda mungkin juga menyukai

___________________ _ ____________________