Ethical guidelines

Determining the Appropriate Ethical Review Committee for Psychology Department Research

Ethics Approval for Externally- or Internally-Funded Research

If you are applying for or renewing a grant, or if you have just received a new grant, your application for ethics review should go to the appropriate University Research Ethics Committee:

Research with animal subjects

All animal research must be reviewed by the University Animal Research Ethics Committee (AREC).
Please consult their website for more information.

Research with human participants

If you are in the process of applying for a grant or if you have just received a new grant, your application for review should be made to the University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC).

If you are beginning a new research investigation that represents a new area of inquiry, a new procedure or a new at-risk population (i.e., children, clinical populations, etc.), your application should also be made to the University HREC.
Please consult their website for more information.

Graduate student research

If a graduate thesis project represents a new area of inquiry currently not funded and ethically approved by the faculty supervisor, a new procedure, or a new at-risk population (i.e., children, clinical populations, etc.), your application should be made to the University HREC. Please consult their website for more information.

If a graduate thesis project represents a low risk study (i.e., questionnaire based, student participants, etc.) within the area of a Psychology Department faculty member’s already ethically approved program of research, or if it represents minor, low risk changes to a previously approved project (such as changing questionnaires or interview questions, making minor, non-intrusive or low risk alterations to your conditions, etc.), please make your application to the Psychology Department Ethics Committee.

If a graduate thesis project has already been ethically approved (i.e., when the grant funding the project was awarded), no further approval is required. This is normally the case with graduate research using animal subjects. However, should a student propose a project with animal subjects that utilizes procedures not yet approved for the faculty research supervisor, then the research supervisor must submit a new protocol form to the University AREC with a complete description of the new procedure(s) or modification of existing procedure(s). The AREC must approve the new procedures before the student commences the research project.

Undergraduate student research

For PSYC 311, undergraduate thesis, undergraduate honours thesis and other undergraduate course-related research projects not already approved above, the review committee will consist of the course section instructor, a course teaching assistant, and the chair of the Psychology Department Ethics Committee.
Whether working with animal subjects or human research participants, students must fill out a departmental application, have it approved by their faculty research supervisor (if they have one), and submit the complete application to their course instructor. The course instructor and course teaching assistant will review applications, and, should the project be deemed acceptable, make a recommendation to the chair of the departmental research ethics committee to approve the study for human research. In the case of projects with animal subjects, the faculty research supervisor (required) must acknowledge that the project is part of a funded research program that has already received peer review and subsequent ethics approval from the University AREC. A copy of the faculty researcher’s animal care certificate will suffice as proof of this approval and must be submitted along with the student’s application.

Peer Review of Research

As of 1 September 2003, all research at Concordia must have scientific peer review. In the case of external grants from federal or provincial agencies, this peer review will consist of the granting agency’s own internal review process, and the decision of the external agency will be final. The University’s Research Ethics Committees do not challenge the scientific merit of research that is approved by an external granting agency.

In the case of contract grants with private corporations, the research proposal must receive scientific peer review from the Arts and Sciences Faculty Research Committee. Likewise, all internal, university-funded research (e.g., FRDP) must receive peer review from the Arts and Sciences Faculty Research Committee. In both cases, peer review must precede submission of the application for ethics approval.

In cases where the external granting agencies require ethics approval to accompany submission of the grant, approval may be granted without prior scientific peer review, on the condition that the research must not commence until funding is approved by the granting agency.

Because postdoctoral, graduate, or undergraduate student research is generally considered “supervised” research, peer review is made by several sources, including external granting agencies, faculty research supervisors, thesis committees, course instructors, and teaching assistants.

For questions about any of the above, please contact either the Research Compliance Officer at the Concordia University Office of Research: 848-2424, ext.4888, or the chair of the Psychology Department Ethics Committee.

Virginia Penhune, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Chair
Psychology Department Ethics Committee

Guidelines for classroom recruiting and testing of participants for psychology research

Student participation in psychological research can be beneficial both to investigators and to undergraduate students. By participating in research, these students have the opportunity to gain a better appreciation of psychological testing and experimentation. However, as there are potential risks associated with classroom recruitment and student testing, these guidelines are intended to facilitate the collection of participants and/or data in undergraduate classroom settings at Concordia University, while protecting the rights of student research participants.

Approaching the Instructor

The instructor should be provided with the following information well in advance of the classroom visit:

1. Who is supervising the project.
2. When the recruiter would prefer to visit the class.
3. How long the class visit will take.
4. The nature of the recruitment (sign up sheet, screening questionnaire, etc.)
5. What (if any) testing will occur at the time of recruitment.

Recruiting in Class

When the recruiter visits the classroom, the following information should be provided to the students:

1. The name of the recruiter(s) and the faculty member(s) supervising the project.
2. Contact information for the lab(s) in which the study is being conducted.
3. What the study is meant to investigate.
4. The nature of the study (questionnaire based, interview based, brief description of experimental tasks, etc.).
5. The amount of time required to participate in the study.
6. What compensation (if any) participants will receive for their time.
7. When the study is being conducted (Are appointments set?, Can students drop by the lab?, etc.).
8. Student should be informed that the data that they may provide during the course of their participation are completely unrelated to their required coursework or grade.
9. That participation is completely voluntary and that participants can refuse or withdraw from the study at any time without any negative consequences whatsoever.
10. The nature and/or limits of confidentiality in the study. Ideally, the recruiter should leave the room while sign up sheets and/or questionnaires are being completed so that students will be free to either participate or decline to participate.

Testing in Class

Due to the possible demands produced by testing in groups, in the presence of experimenters and/or in the presence of course instructors, testing in classrooms is discouraged.

If in-class testing is deemed to be essential, the following measures (in addition to the above 10 points) should be taken to protect students from coercion and to ensure the confidentiality of their participation:

1. Participants should be told that their results will not be made available to their instructor.
2. Participants who choose not to participate should not be separated or otherwise identified during classroom testing. (This may be accomplished by distributing packages to all students in the class and then stating that students are free to either spoil the materials or leave them blank before returning them.)
3. In addition to written debriefing (see below), students should receive a brief oral debriefing in class about the purpose of the study.

Debriefing

All experimental and study participants have the right to be debriefed from psychological studies. In order to facilitate both a greater understanding of research in psychology and to provide other sources of related information about the study, student participants should receive a brief written debriefing sheet (less than one half page) upon completion of the study.

The debriefing sheet should contain the following information:

1. The name of the study, the experimenter(s) and the faculty supervisor(s).
2. The telephone and other contact information for the lab(s) in which the study was conducted as well as contact information for the University Human Research Ethics Committee and the Psychology Department Ethics Committee.
3. *The nature of the study (hypotheses, goals, etc.).
4. *Some information about the design of the study (groups, measures, etc.).
5. A brief statement about the importance or implications of the study.
6. Citation of one or two suggested articles or book chapters for further reading.

*If the study involves deception, it is acceptable for items 3 and 4 to be somewhat vague when distributed in written form, provided that a full oral debriefing is given to each participant. Ideally, this sheet will be accompanied by a brief oral debriefing period in which the above are explained to the student participant.

All experimental and study participants have the right to be debriefed from psychological studies. In order to facilitate both a greater understanding of research in psychology and to provide other sources of related information about the study, student participants should receive a brief written debriefing sheet (less than one half page) upon completion of the study.

The debriefing sheet should contain the following information:

1. The name of the study, the experimenter(s) and the faculty supervisor(s).
2. The telephone and other contact information for the lab(s) in which the study was conducted as well as contact information for the University Human Research Ethics Committee and the Psychology Department Ethics Committee.
3. The nature of the study (hypotheses, goals, etc.).*
4. Some information about the design of the study (groups, measures, etc.).*
5. A brief statement about the importance or implications of the study.
6. Citation of one or two suggested articles or book chapters for further reading.

* If the study involves deception, it is acceptable for items 3 and 4 to be somewhat vague when distributed in written form, provided that a full oral debriefing is given to each participant. Ideally, this sheet will be accompanied by a brief oral debriefing period in which the above are explained to the student participant.

Please see the Concordia University Office of Research website to access forms relating to research ethic compliance.

Undergrad cover sheets downloads:

• Already approved research: UG-SPF-COV-AA
• Not already approved research: UG-SPF-COV-NA
   

Scholarly Review Form Instructions

In some cases researchers must prepare a Scholarly Review Form (SRF), which is appended to the SPF. This form need only be completed when

1. the proposed research requires scientific review, and
2. such a review has not already been completed.

Scientific review is required for all funded and contract research, for all biomedical research, and for all other research involving a higher-than-minimal level of risk.

Scientific review has already been completed for funded research (as part of the adjudication process) and for thesis research (which is reviewed by supervisors and departmental committees).

In other cases when scientific review is required, researchers must demonstrate that their proposals have been approved by two colleagues who are not involved in same research. In most cases, Psychology Department research will not require additional scholarly review above and beyond that already provided by dissertation committees, course instructors and granting agencies