If you’ve ever tried to get a trauma-focused research proposal through an Institutional Review Board (IRB), you probably already know, it can feel like walking through a bureaucratic minefield. You write your protocol, make your case, and then… silence. Or worse, a full page of comments asking about “psychological risk mitigation” or “participant safeguarding protocols.” It’s frustrating, especially when your intentions are grounded in empathy and a desire to help vulnerable populations.
But here’s the thing: the institutional or independent IRB isn’t your enemy. Their job is to protect people, especially those who may already carry deep wounds. In trauma counseling research, that means protecting individuals who’ve experienced violence, abuse, disaster, loss, or systemic harm. These individuals often carry invisible injuries that can be re-triggered by the wrong questions or careless study design. For the IRB, it’s not just about approving your study; it’s about making sure your research doesn’t cause more harm than good.
In the last decade, interest in trauma-focused therapy and research has exploded. Schools, clinics, community programs, and even criminal justice systems are now turning to trauma-informed approaches to understand behavior, healing, and resilience. The growing acknowledgment that trauma plays a major role in mental health and well-being means there’s never been a greater need for ethical, well-designed research. Studies on trauma help counselors refine interventions, understand diverse trauma responses, and promote evidence-based practices. But all of this depends on your ability to foster collaboration and gain access to people who’ve experienced trauma, and doing so in a way that respects their autonomy, emotional safety, and dignity. That’s where things get complicated.
Researcher Felitti et al. (1998), who conducted the now-famous Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, managed to navigate this ethical tightrope by building in safety measures, offering comprehensive support, and being extremely careful in how they framed and administered sensitive questions. Their work opened the floodgates for more trauma research, but also set a high ethical bar that all of us have to meet today. This post is here to help you understand what the human research IRB is really looking for when it reviews trauma-related protocols. It will walk through practical ways to design studies that acknowledge risk, mitigate harm, and still collect meaningful data. You’ll learn how to build trust with the IRB, not by downplaying risks, but by showing that you’ve thought them through carefully and ethically.
Whether you’re a grad student working on a thesis, a faculty member seeking funding, or a practitioner doing applied research in your community, this guide is meant to help you do your work better and get it approved faster. Because at the end of the day, ethical research isn’t about avoiding risk entirely. It’s about handling it with wisdom, responsibility, and care.
1. Understanding IRB Expectations: Ethics Through Their Lens
When you submit your trauma-focused study to the IRB, you’re not just sending it off for a quick thumbs-up. You’re asking a group of people, usually researchers, clinicians, ethicists, and sometimes even community members, to assess the ethical backbone of your project. That means your methods, your language, your safety nets, and how you plan to treat the people who trust you with their stories. The human research IRB doesn’t just want to know if your study is interesting or needed. They want to know if it’s safe, justifiable, and designed with care. And if your work involves asking people to recall or process trauma, the scrutiny becomes sharper, for good reason.
The Three Ethical Pillars: What the IRB Is Built On
Most institutions or independent IRBs in the United States follow the framework laid out in The Belmont Report (1979), a foundational document that outlines three basic ethical principles: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.
- Respect for persons means honoring people’s autonomy and protecting those who may have reduced autonomy (such as children, individuals in recovery, or incarcerated persons). In trauma research, this translates into giving participants meaningful choices, not pressuring them to participate, and offering a clear path and honest information about what they’re signing up for.
- Beneficence requires you to “do no harm” and, ideally, to provide some benefit through the research. In practice, this means minimizing emotional distress, preventing traumatization, and including strategies that support participant well-being throughout the process.
- Justice refers to the fair distribution of research benefits and burdens. For example, it’s not ethically sound to constantly study low-income communities because they’re easier to access, unless those communities are also being meaningfully served or represented by the outcomes.
These principles aren’t abstract; they’re the lens through which IRBs read your proposal. If your study seems to lack protective measures, doesn’t clearly describe how risks are minimized, or recruits from vulnerable groups without a clear justification, the IRB is likely to pause or reject it.
What Counts as Risk in Trauma Research?
One of the most misunderstood aspects of human subject review board review is how they interpret risk. Researchers often assume that because their study doesn’t involve physical danger, it’s low-risk. But emotional and psychological risks carry just as much weight, especially when the topic is trauma. Asking participants to talk about past abuse, grief, violence, or discrimination can bring up strong feelings. Some may feel shame, panic, sadness, or even flashbacks. These reactions don’t happen with every participant, but the Institutional Review Board needs to see that you’ve thought about what could happen and how you’ll respond if it does.
Studies like those by Newman, Willard, Sinclair, and Kaloupek (2001) have shown that while many trauma-exposed individuals are willing to engage in research and may even find it meaningful, a significant minority experience distress, especially without proper supports. That’s why Human Subject Review Boards expect clear protocols for de-escalation, referrals, and stopping participation if things become too overwhelming. If your application includes lines like “no known risks anticipated,” the IRB is likely to push back. In trauma-focused work, it’s not about eliminating all risk. It’s about acknowledging that risk exists and showing how you’re prepared to handle it ethically and compassionately.
How Language and Framing Shape IRB Decisions
Believe it or not, how you write about your study can impact how it’s received. IRBs aren’t just reading for substance; they’re reading for tone to ensure you have expertise and care in handling the process. If your proposal sounds clinical, detached, or vague about participant support, it may signal that the researcher hasn’t fully considered the emotional landscape of trauma work. On the other hand, if you clearly explain your methods, justify your choices, and describe your safeguards in plain, respectful language, the IRB is more likely to view your protocol as trustworthy. It also helps to align your wording with the IRB’s own priorities. For example, stating that “all procedures will follow trauma-informed principles of emotional safety, choice, and empowerment” shows that you’re aware of best practices (see SAMHSA, 2014). Citing relevant ethical guidelines or trauma research helps too; it lets reviewers know you’ve done your homework.
Red Flags IRBs Watch For in Trauma Studies
There are a few common missteps that can raise concerns with trauma-focused protocols:
- Overly intrusive questions with no rationale or flexibility to skip them
- Lack of debriefing or follow-up care options
- Recruitment from high-risk groups without a support plan
- Inadequate training for researchers conducting sensitive interviews
- One-size-fits-all consent forms that don’t reflect trauma-informed language
If your proposal includes any of these elements without context or protection, it can delay approval or lead to a flat denial.
Moving From Compliance to Compassionate Design
Ultimately, the independent IRBs don’t want to stop your study. They want to make sure it’s done responsibly. When you approach ethics as part of the design process, not just as a box to check, you’re more likely to build something that not only gets approved but also truly honors the people involved. And here’s the good news: once you understand what the IRB services are looking for, you can actually use that knowledge to build better studies. Safer studies. Studies that give participants a voice without making them relive harm. That’s where we’re headed next.
In the following section, we’ll look at how to design trauma research that anticipates psychological risk, not by playing it safe or watering things down, but by creating protocols that balance inquiry with compassion.
2. Designing Trauma Research That Anticipates Psychological Risk
Once you understand how IRBs evaluate trauma-focused studies, the next step is designing a research protocol that makes ethical sense, not just on paper, but in practice. This means more than simply stating that you’ll minimize harm. It requires building a study that actively anticipates emotional risk and takes concrete steps to prevent distress from becoming damage. If you’re researching trauma, you’re not just collecting data. You’re engaging with human stories that might carry real pain. The way you approach that responsibility, through your methods, your questions, and your safeguards, can make or break both your research quality and your participants’ safety.
Start with a Trauma-Informed Framework
Trauma-informed care has made its way into classrooms, hospitals, and therapy spaces. It’s time it becomes standard in research, too. A trauma-informed approach recognizes that trauma is widespread, that its effects are complex and ongoing, and that researchers have a duty to avoid reactivating those wounds. SAMHSA (2014) outlines key principles of trauma-informed work: safety, trustworthiness, choice, fostering collaboration, and empowerment. These aren’t just buzzwords. They’re practical values you can embed in your study design. For example:
- Safety means letting participants know what to expect at every stage.
- Choice means allowing them to skip questions or stop participation without penalty.
- Empowerment means making room for their voice, not just extracting their story.
Building these values into your study structure shows the IRB that you’re not just checking boxes, you’re thinking like a researcher and a human being.
Screen Carefully, But Respectfully
Some trauma researchers feel they should open their studies to everyone. But trauma exposure isn’t one-size-fits-all. Certain experiences, like complex PTSD, ongoing abuse, or unresolved grief, may make participation more distressing for some than others. That’s why it’s important to use screening tools thoughtfully. Instruments like the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) or the Brief Trauma Questionnaire (BTQ) can help you assess a participant’s trauma exposure level or symptom severity before the study begins. But screening isn’t just about excluding people. It’s about giving them (and you) a picture of what participation might involve. Be transparent about why you’re using a screening measure and how it will be used. Will certain scores trigger a referral or follow-up? Will high-risk participants be excluded? The Human Subject Review Board will want to know. Keep in mind that screening should never feel like a test. It’s part of a conversation, one that prioritizes participant well-being over rigid eligibility.
Plan for Emotional Safety Before, During, and After
It’s not enough to include a crisis hotline number at the end of your survey and call it a day. IRB’s direct management is looking for emotional safety at all stages of your study. Before participation, provide detailed information about the kinds of topics you’ll explore. Use clear, non-clinical language to describe what the experience will be like. Consider offering a preview of questions or themes so participants aren’t caught off guard. During participation, offer check-in points. For interviews, this could be as simple as pausing periodically to ask how the participant is feeling. For surveys, build in reminder screens that let people take breaks or stop if they feel overwhelmed. After the study, consider what kind of debriefing makes sense. This could include a brief emotional check-out, a list of support resources, or even a follow-up email that checks on the participant a few days later. These small touches show the independent IRB that your concern for safety doesn’t end once the data is collected.
Be Flexible in Your Methodology
Just because you’re studying trauma doesn’t mean you need to probe deeply into people’s worst experiences. In fact, many high-quality studies gather meaningful data without requiring detailed disclosures. For example, narrative interviews let participants tell their story in their own way, with as much or as little detail as they choose. Reflective journaling gives participants time to process before responding. Even visual or art-based methods have been used successfully in trauma research, allowing people to express themselves without reliving pain verbally. Flexibility isn’t a sign of weak research. It’s a sign of respect. When you let participants control the pace and depth of their engagement, you’re not just protecting them, you’re often getting richer, more honest data.
Build in Opt-Outs and Micro-Consent
A growing trend in ethical trauma research is the use of “micro-consent” to foster collaboration and participants’ repeated opportunities to opt in or out of specific parts of the study. This might mean asking at the beginning of each interview section, “Would you like to continue talking about this?” or giving the option to skip trauma-related questions without penalty. This respects autonomy in real time, not just at the start. It also reassures the IRB that you’re not locking people into an experience that may become emotionally unsafe as it unfolds.
Putting It All Together
When you proactively anticipate risk, not just in your IRB application, but in the heart of your study design, you create research that’s safer, stronger, and more humane. This isn’t about limiting your inquiry. It’s about being a trustworthy researcher in a space where trust is often hard-won. Now that we’ve covered the “what” and “how” of anticipating risk, the next piece is understanding that consent isn’t a one-time form; it’s a continuous ethical practice. In the next section, we’ll look at how to move beyond the signature and into deeper, more meaningful consent processes that support participants throughout the research journey.
3. Consent Isn’t Enough: Building Ethical Scaffolding Beyond the Signature
In most research settings, informed consent is treated like a starting gun: participants read a form, sign their name, and the study begins. But in trauma-focused research, that approach can fall dangerously short. For people with trauma histories, informed consent isn’t just about agreeing to participate. It’s about understanding what they’re stepping into and feeling they can step out of it at any time, for any reason, without fear or guilt. That’s why in ethical trauma research, we need to think of consent as more than a document. It’s a scaffold, a structure that supports participants before, during, and after the study. This section explores what that scaffold looks like and why it matters so much.
Why One-Time Consent Isn’t Enough
Traditional consent forms meet the minimum standard set by most Human Subject Review Boards: they describe the study, note any risks or benefits, and confirm the participant’s voluntary agreement. But here’s the issue: trauma survivors may feel pressured to comply, especially if they’re used to having their boundaries ignored or overridden. Studies have shown that individuals with complex trauma may struggle to assert themselves in institutional settings, even when they feel uncomfortable (Newman & Kaloupek, 2004). In a research context, this could mean continuing with an interview that feels too intense, simply because they signed a form and don’t want to seem “difficult.” Informed consent is important, but ethical engagement requires ongoing consent. That means checking in, allowing withdrawal without consequence, and creating a research space where people feel safe enough to speak up if something isn’t working for them.
Introducing Micro-Consent and Layered Choice
One of the most respectful practices in trauma-informed research is micro-consent, offering consent opportunities at multiple stages. Instead of relying on that single signature, researchers might pause during an interview to ask, “Would you like to continue talking about this topic, or would you prefer to move on?” or “Do you feel okay answering the next section of questions?” This provides direct management and gives participants real-time control over their involvement. It communicates: you’re not locked in, you can adjust, pause, or stop whenever you need to. In survey-based studies, layered choices can be built in by allowing participants to skip trauma-related questions without penalty. Letting people choose which parts of the study they engage with helps balance the need for data with the ethical imperative of autonomy and safety.
Consent Language That Builds Trust
How you write and speak about informed consent matters. Forms loaded with legal or academic jargon can be confusing or intimidating. Trauma survivors, especially those who’ve had difficult experiences with authority figures, may feel unsure about what they’re really agreeing to. Instead, consider using plain, transparent, and compassionate language. For example:
- Rather than: “You may withdraw from the study at any time.”
Try: “If anything feels uncomfortable at any point, you are welcome to take a break or stop, no explanation needed, and no pressure to continue.” - Rather than: “Some questions may be distressing.”
Try: “This study includes topics that may bring up difficult memories. You can skip any question that doesn’t feel right for you.”
These small shifts help participants feel more in control, which is essential in trauma research. When people feel respected and safe, they’re more likely to stay engaged and offer honest responses, benefiting both their well-being and the integrity of your data.
Debriefing as Part of the Consent Process
Another often-overlooked piece of ethical consent is the debriefing process. After a trauma study, participants may need time to reflect on what they shared, how they feel, and what comes next. A good debrief offers more than a thank-you. It checks in emotionally, provides grounding resources, fosters collaboration, and reminds participants of their rights (including the option to withdraw their data, if appropriate). Some researchers also provide a list of post-participation support services, such as counseling centers, crisis hotlines, or peer support groups. Including these signals that you’re thinking about the participant’s well-being long after the session ends.
A Culture of Consent, Not Just a Form
Ultimately, consent in trauma research should be a living, breathing process. When you approach it that way, you create a culture where participants feel seen and supported, not just studied. And that’s what makes your work not only more ethical but also more impactful. The good news? IRB services are increasingly responsive to these more nuanced approaches to informed consent. When you show that you’re thinking beyond the form, that you’re treating consent as a relationship, not a transaction, you’re more likely to earn trust and approval. Now that we’ve explored how to support participants through ongoing consent, the next step is expanding your team to include professionals who can help carry that ethical load. In the next section, we’ll explore why partnering with clinicians, not just academics, can make a critical difference in trauma research design, safety, and independent IRB confidence.
4. Collaboration with Clinicians, Not Just Academics
One of the most overlooked strategies in trauma research is also one of the most powerful: bringing licensed mental health professionals into your research team from the start. While academic researchers are well-versed in methods, literature, and data analysis, clinicians bring something just as essential, direct, and daily experience supporting people who live with trauma. When trauma is your research focus, it makes sense to invite those who work closest with it into your process. This collaboration can improve the quality of your study, protect your participants, and, in many cases, help your protocol move through IRB review with fewer hiccups.
Why Clinician Partnerships Matter
At first glance, academic researchers and clinicians might seem like they live in different worlds. Researchers collect and interpret data; clinicians focus on treatment and support. But when it comes to trauma, those two roles intersect more than we often realize. Clinicians know firsthand what distress looks like, how it can surface unexpectedly, and what steps are most effective in de-escalating a participant’s emotional response. They’re trained to spot red flags, respond to disclosures of abuse or harm, and hold space for people navigating difficult memories.
Bringing that expertise into the research space ensures that you’re not just prepared for distress in theory; you have someone on your team who’s equipped to manage it when it happens. That’s a powerful message to send to the Human Subject Review Board: we’re not just anticipating risk, we have the right people to handle it. This is especially important when working with participants who have ongoing psychological symptoms, such as PTSD, dissociation, or anxiety triggered by trauma reminders. A clinician’s input can guide your team in avoiding traumatization through more thoughtful questioning, clearer research protocols, and crisis planning.
Designing Safety Plans with Clinical Insight
Every trauma study needs a clear plan for how you’ll respond if a participant becomes distressed. But not all safety plans are created equal. Some studies provide a generic list of crisis lines or a boilerplate “participants may withdraw at any time” clause. While well-meaning, these alone may not satisfy an IRB’s guide to “yes”, especially if your study involves vulnerable groups or detailed personal disclosures. Clinicians can help you build a concrete response plan. That might include:
- On-call availability during interviews or surveys
- Scripted protocols for responding to disclosures of abuse or suicidal ideation
- A list of referral providers tailored to the participant population (e.g., trauma-informed, culturally competent counselors)
- Guidelines for when to pause or terminate an interview for emotional safety
These aren’t just bureaucratic additions. They’re signals of ethical maturity, proof that you’re treating your participants’ well-being as seriously as your research questions.
Training for Research Staff
If your team includes research assistants or graduate students who will interact with participants, a clinician can also provide IRB training in trauma-sensitive communication. This could include:
- Recognizing signs of distress or dissociation
- Using grounding techniques during interviews
- Knowing what to say and what not to say after a difficult disclosure
- Understanding their own limits and when to escalate concerns
This kind of training doesn’t turn your team into therapists, but it does build confidence and competence. And again, it reassures the IRB that your staff is equipped to engage with participants safely and respectfully.
Ethics Committees Appreciate Interdisciplinary Teams
Human Subject Review Boards are increasingly interested in seeing that trauma research is guided by lived expertise and clinical knowledge, not just abstract academic frameworks. When you submit your protocol with a licensed counselor or psychologist as a co-investigator or consultant, it shows a deeper level of care and thought. In fact, in some settings, especially community-based or applied research, the IRB for researchers may even expect interdisciplinary teams. This is particularly true when working with high-risk groups, such as youth in foster care, survivors of domestic violence, or those recently impacted by natural disasters. Including a clinician isn’t just good ethics, it’s good strategy. It can help streamline your approval process, anticipate reviewer concerns, and ultimately make your study stronger and safer.
A Stronger Study, A Safer Space
In trauma-focused research, data doesn’t come at the cost of care. When you work alongside clinicians, in order to enhance collaboration, you create a research space where participants feel supported, researchers feel prepared, and ethical standards rise across the board. This kind of collaboration doesn’t dilute academic rigor; it deepens it. You end up with a study that’s not only valid, but also compassionate. And that’s the kind of research the world needs more of. As we’ve seen, building your team with clinical insight strengthens the ethical spine of your project. But designing a strong team is just one part of keeping trauma research safe. The next essential piece is monitoring safety in real time, especially as participants share difficult truths. In the next section, we’ll look at how to track and respond to emotional risk as it unfolds, and how to build reporting systems that IRBs can trust.
5. Monitoring and Reporting Risk Responsibly: Ethics in Motion
Designing a trauma study with safeguards is a good start, but ethics doesn’t stop once your protocol is approved. Trauma-related risks aren’t static. They show up in real-time, often in ways that surprise even the most experienced researchers. That’s why ethical research in this space depends on dynamic monitoring and direct management: paying attention to emotional cues, knowing how to respond in the moment, and having a plan for what happens after the data is collected. This ongoing process, watching for signs of distress, acting when needed, and keeping the IRB in the loop, isn’t just about compliance. It’s about accountability. It’s about honoring the people who’ve trusted you with their stories.
Build Ethical Reflexes into the Research Flow
When someone becomes overwhelmed or triggered during a study session, the response can’t be ad hoc. You don’t want your team scrambling or second-guessing what to do. That’s why it’s crucial to build “ethical reflexes” into your study structure. For example, if an interview participant becomes visibly upset, does the interviewer pause the session? Offer grounding techniques? Contact a team lead? Every step should be mapped out in advance, and every team member should know it.
For online surveys, it can be harder to detect emotional distress, but not impossible. You might offer optional check-in screens partway through: “Would you like to take a break?” or “If anything has been difficult, here are some support resources.” These small prompts give participants an outlet, and reduce the sense of isolation that sometimes comes with self-guided studies. You don’t need to turn every study into a therapy session. But you do need to make space for human emotion, and have a response plan that’s compassionate, not clinical.
Track Emotional Safety Like You Track Data
Just as you monitor data quality, you should be monitoring participant experience. This can be informal (such as post-session feedback) or built into your research protocol (through distress scales or follow-up calls). Either way, the goal is the same: to notice when your process is doing harm, or heading in that direction. One method used in trauma studies is the Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDS), a quick 0–10 scale participants can use to rate how they’re feeling at different points. It’s simple but powerful. If someone rates their distress as an 8 or 9, it might be time to stop the session or offer a resource. Another strategy is to incorporate real-time journaling or emotional prompts that allow participants to flag concerns, even anonymously. These tools don’t just protect participants, they help researchers fine-tune their methods over time. When you start treating participant distress like part of your data, something to observe, respond to, and learn from, you’re practicing ethics in motion.
What Happens When Risk Becomes Real
Despite all the planning in the world, there will be times when someone shares something serious: a recent trauma, a safety concern, or a disclosure of abuse. When that happens, your team must know when it’s time to move beyond data collection and into a duty of care. This is where your referral protocols kick in. Participants should be offered immediate resources and, in some cases, connected to a licensed clinician on your team (or one on call). For mandatory reporting situations, like disclosures of current abuse involving minors, you must also be familiar with local legal requirements and have a reporting procedure in place. The Human Subject Review Board doesn’t expect you to fix everything. But they do expect you to recognize a crisis and respond appropriately. The stronger your plan, the more confident they’ll feel about your ability to carry out the study safely.
Transparent Reporting Builds IRB Trust
Most independent IRBs require adverse event reporting if something goes wrong during a study. But too often, researchers see this as a punishment or red flag. In reality, transparent reporting builds credibility. It shows that you’re paying attention, taking responsibility, and actively maintaining ethical oversight. Your protocol should include a clear reporting structure, who collects participant concerns, how they’re documented, and how often reports are reviewed. Some teams hold regular internal ethics reviews or post-session debriefings to identify emerging issues before they escalate. Consider also sharing your reflections with the IRB during progress updates. Let them know what’s working, what participants are saying, and how you’ve adapted your protocol through a comprehensive, bespoke approach. This collaborative tone reassures the board that ethics isn’t just a form you filled out months ago; it’s a living part of your work.
From Vigilance to Respect
At its core, monitoring risk in trauma research is about respect. You’re not there to catch people when they fall; you’re there to build a net that helps them land gently if they stumble. When your protocol treats distress as a possibility, not an anomaly, you’re doing what ethical trauma research is meant to do: protect people without silencing them. And that brings us to the final piece of this journey. Up to this point, we’ve talked about designing ethical studies that minimize harm and anticipate risk. But there’s something bigger at stake here, too. In the final section, we’ll explore how these ethical practices don’t just help us “get through IRB.” They shape the future of research itself, turning trauma science into a more humane and compassionate form of inquiry.
Conclusion: Ethics as Innovation, Not Obstacle
If there’s one myth trauma researchers need to let go of, it’s this: that the IRB is a barrier to overcome rather than a partner to guide you to “yes” and ensure you do responsible, meaningful work. It’s easy to get caught in the frustration. You design a thoughtful study, and the IRB returns with questions about risk, safety, language, and referrals. It can feel like a delay, a burden, or an endless game of revisions. But if we shift the way we think about ethical review, we’ll see something else entirely. The IRB’s scrutiny isn’t there to water down your work. It’s there to strengthen it. It’s an invitation to think deeper, build smarter, and lead with care.
If you’re doing trauma-focused research, you already know how important it is to get the IRB process right and how overwhelming it can feel. But here’s what we believe at Beyond Bound IRB: it doesn’t have to be hard. With the right expertise and care in handling the process, the ethical review can shift from being a source of anxiety to a structured path toward safer, more impactful research.
When you partner with Beyond Bound IRB, you get a comprehensive, bespoke approach, not a one-size-fits-all checklist, but a trauma-informed, researcher-centered path built around your specific needs and goals. Whether you’re preparing your first study or revising a complex protocol, our team ensures fast, confident approval with efficient, stress-free service at every step.
We believe in direct engagement, real people who know this work, care about it, and are ready to walk with you. No guessing games. Just a clear path forward. More than that, we work to eliminate obstacles before they ever show up on your IRB feedback form. Our team includes both researchers and clinicians, which means we understand trauma not just academically, but practically. We don’t just review protocols, we help you build ethically sound, IRB-ready designs from day one.
Looking to skill up your own IRB confidence? Our IRB Heart training program is built for you. It’s designed to foster collaboration between researchers and boards, helping you move beyond compliance into confident, ethical leadership in your field. You’ll learn the ins and outs of trauma-informed review, proactive risk mitigation, and how to talk to IRBs in a language they trust.
References
DePrince, A. P., & Chu, A. T. (2008). Perceived benefits and challenges of participation in trauma research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2008.3.1.49
Newman, E., Willard, T., Sinclair, R., & Kaloupek, D. (2001). Empirically supported ethical research practices: The costs and benefits of research from the participants’ view. Accountability in Research, 8(4), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620108573984
Newman, E., & Kaloupek, D. G. (2004). The risks and benefits of participating in trauma-focused research studies. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(5), 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTS.0000048951.02568.3a
SAMHSA (2014). SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4884. https://ncsacw.acf.hhs.gov/userfiles/files/SAMHSA_Trauma.pdf
Newman, E., & Kaloupek, D. G. (2004). The risks and benefits of participating in trauma-focused research studies. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(5), 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTS.0000048951.02568.3a
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2014). SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4884. https://ncsacw.acf.hhs.gov/userfiles/files/SAMHSA_Trauma.pdf
SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). (2014). SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4884. https://ncsacw.acf.hhs.gov/userfiles/files/SAMHSA_Trauma.pdf
Weathers, F. W., Litz, B. T., Keane, T. M., Palmieri, P. A., Marx, B. P., & Schnurr, P. P. (2013). The PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). National Center for PTSD. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/assessment/adult-sr/ptsd-checklist.asp
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., … & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html