Table 4 Comparison, by role, of mean factor domain scores awarded to actual IRB and the ideal IRB
From: Performance of IRBs in China: a survey on IRB employees and researchers’ experiences and perceptions
Domain | IRB employee | Researcher | Both IRB employee and researcher |
|---|---|---|---|
Procedural justice | 5.71 ± 0.95 | 5.79 ± 0.92 | 5.63 ± 0.89 |
6.34 ± 0.63 | 6.23 ± 0.69 | 6.28 ± 0.75 | |
Interactional justice | 5.76 ± 0.91 | 5.77 ± 0.94 | 5.64 ± 0.84 |
6.20 ± 0.70 | 6.20 ± 0.69 | 6.12 ± 0.76 | |
Absence of bias | 5.89 ± 0.88 | 5.83 ± 0.93 | 5.76 ± 0.94 |
6.36 ± 0.67 | 6.26 ± 0.71 | 6.28 ± 0.70 | |
Pro-science sensitivity | 5.82 ± 0.90 | 5.81 ± 0.94 | 5.72 ± 0.76 |
6.26 ± 0.71 | 6.22 ± 0.73 | 6.20 ± 0.66 | |
IRB competence | 5.62 ± 0.97 | 5.79 ± 0.97 | 5.60 ± 0.76 |
6.25 ± 0.68 | 6.22 ± 0.70 | 6.18 ± 0.69 | |
IRB outreach | 5.58 ± 1.03 | 5.75 ± 1.01 | 5.51 ± 0.61 |
6.09 ± 0.85 | 6.13 ± 0.77 | 6.04 ± 0.76 | |
IRB formal functioning, structure, and composition | 5.76 ± 0.96 | 5.79 ± 0.94 | 5.78 ± 0.85 |
6.27 ± 0.70 | 6.15 ± 0.73 | 6.18 ± 0.74 | |
Upholding the rights of human participants | 5.83 ± 0.99 | 5.85 ± 0.96 | 5.72 ± 0.99 |
6.36 ± 0.68 | 6.24 ± 0.73 | 6.25 ± 0.68 | |
Total | 5.75 ± 0.86 | 5.80 ± 0.91 | 5.67 ± 0.76 |
6.27 ± 0.61 | 6.21 ± 0.67 | 6.20 ± 0.67 |