[Spanish adaptation and validation of The Institutional Review Board Researcher Assessment Tool (IRB-RAT)]

Performance of IRBs in China: a survey on IRB employees and researchers' experiences and perceptions

Background

Performance evaluation is vital for IRB operations. As the number of IRBs and their responsibilities in reviewing and supervising clinical research grow in China, there is a significant need to evaluate their performances. To date, little research has examined IRB performance within China. The aim of this study was to ascertain the perspectives and experiences of IRB employees and researchers to (1) understand the current status of IRBs; (2) compare collected results with those of other countries; and (3) identify shortcomings to improve IRB performance.

Methods

This study was conducted in China from October 2020 to September 2021, using an online survey with the IRB-researcher assessment tool-Chinese version.

Results

757 respondents were included in the analysis and classified into IRB employees, researchers, or those who are both IRB employees and researchers. Overall, the score for an ideal IRB was significantly higher than that of an actual IRB. Compared to the US National Validation study, Chinese participants and American participants both agree and differ in their perspectives on the most and least important ideal items.

Conclusion

This investigation provides a benchmark of the perceived performance of actual IRBs in China. IRBs in China can be precisely adjusted by targeting identified areas of weakness to improve their performances.

Cross-cultural validation of the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool: Chinese Version

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.

Evaluating IACUCs: Previous Research and Future Directions

IACUCs serve a critical role in animal care and use programs, ensuring that institutions which use animals in research and teaching do so responsibly and humanely. This role is defined in part by federal regulations, policies, and guidelines that prescribe the establishment and function of these committees. Often, IACUC administrators are expected to evaluate IACUC performance to ensure that committees execute these functions effectively, and in a manner that is suitable to the institution. However, methods for IACUC performance evaluation have not been well described in the peer-reviewed literature. To address this deficit, we conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE to identify methods that have been used to assess IACUCs. The scope of this review was intentionally broad to capture evaluation methods used by other institutional committees with similar responsibilities in overseeing research conduct, including animal ethics committees (AECs), institutional biosafety committees (IBCs), and institutional review boards (IRBs). Over 100 publications that included empirical evaluation methods were identified, although only 17 evaluated IACUCs in the United States. A substantial number of the studies used qualitative methods, such as surveys or questionnaires, interviews, and observations. The IACUC functions and characteristics most often assessed in the 17 publications included components of the protocol review processes and committee membership. We compiled this information to offer IACUC administrators a source of methodologies that can be incorporated into quality improvement and IACUC performance evaluation efforts. We also suggest ways in which organizations may evaluate IACUCs using methods described in the literature for other types of committees.