»Æ¹Ï¶ÌÊÓƵ

Approved by the Curriculum Oversight Committee July 2010.

The Associate Dean for Evaluation is charged with reviewing all educational research proposals involving medical students or educational data using the criteria listed below. Projects for which most of the questions are answered positively will be approved and forwarded to the Human Assurance Committee.

The most important criteria for this review are in bold font. Other criteria should be used (1) to structure feedback to the investigator to improve the proposal after it is approved OR (2) to determine if there is a "fatal flaw" in the proposal that justifies sending it back to the investigator for additional information or changes before recommending approval. This review functions both as a protective measure for students and the curriculum and as a means for providing peer feedback and support to educational researchers in the School of Medicine. All feedback in the form of reviewer comments will be compiled and provided to the investigator upon approval of the project.

• Are appropriate measures planned to assure that the study's administration procedures are not unduly cumbersome for students?
  • Is the project time frame appropriate with respect to the academic schedule and other ongoing data collection efforts involving students?
  • Is the amount of time required for student participants appropriate? 
  • Are appropriate data collection procedures described (location, support personnel, response mechanisms, etc.)?
  • Is sampling used effectively? If the researcher proposes to include all students, is that choice appropriately justified?
  • Do the expected benefits of the study outweigh the cost of the study in terms of student time and use of other resources?
  • Is the study non-duplicative of other on-going research work?
  • If other groups or people (e.g., course directors, other researchers) are involved in the data collection effort, has approval been obtained?
• Are appropriate procedures planned to protect student confidentiality or anonymity?
• Are the objectives of the study clearly defined so that the study's merit can be assessed?
• Does the proposal clearly describe the nature of the primary data-gathering required, if any, and its relationship to secondary-source data (e.g., existing academic data) defined in the study?
• Has the researcher made appropriate plans for reporting study results to students and/or to the Curriculum Committee?
• Has the researcher obtained other appropriate approvals for the project (e.g., Student Affairs, any course or clerkship directors)?

NOTE: Investigators have been informed that the review of this project by the Education Research Committee on behalf of the Curriculum Committee does not constitute IRB approval or substitute for IRB approval. It also does not imply assistance in administering the project.