Practicality in research refers to the ease with which a model can be designed, administered, and scored. Regardless of how dependable a tool is, it must be practical to create and administer. Thus, this indicates that it must be affordable to supply and not prohibitively expensive. It relates to the cost-effectiveness of monitoring time, activity, and expense. In other words, the simulations should be simple to build, execute, and label and simple to analyze the findings. The viability of a study aid is a critical indicator of the report’s effectiveness and safety and the resilience of the research project. The significantly diminished feasibility of methodological approaches can be a significant warning sign regarding the study settings or the inclusion of erroneous data. Significant variation in viability may indicate an issue with the research procedure.
The models proposed for the IRB review are practical since they can be used to yield the desired outcomes in an easy and desirable manner, as enumerated by the study participants. Furthermore, numerous respondents agreed that implementing such frameworks will raise the effectiveness of methodological and regulatory reviews, as various organizational IRBs lack the competence necessary to review rapidly advancing projects (NIH, 2005). Additionally, most individuals felt that institutional IRBs were overwhelmed; they identified alleviation from growing work burdens as a primary benefit of numerous options to existing institutional assessment (NIH, 2005). Finally, many argued that approaches, such as establishing a central IRB, would allow the organization to concentrate on other research participants’ protection obligations, such as upholding the highest standards of monitoring and assessment.
On the other hand, the alternative models showed significant viability, thus producing effectiveness and safety as stipulated by the participants. Through the alternative models, respondents highlighted some of the issues that would likely occur when the tools are used. The models highlighted several issues as explained herein, thus proving efficient and reliable. First, organizational problems such as administrative authority over studies, structural responsibility, the institution’s capability to adjust to new functioning methods, and institutional impropriety will be discussed (NIH, 2005). Second, performance difficulties in detailed research include settling disputes between and among IRBs, ensuring continuity of monitoring across locations, completing assessments on time, practicality, and avoiding duplicates (NIH, 2005). Finally, matters regarding supervision effectiveness included methodological and regulatory knowledge on the IRB, familiarity with the local conceptual framework, familiarity with the subject population, and response to participant complaints.
Reference
The National Institute of Health (NIH) (2005). Alternative models of IRB review. Workshop Summary Report. 1-7.