Expanding a single-institution survey to multiple institutions: Lessons learned in research design and deployment

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18060/23945

Keywords:

multi-institutional survey, institutional review board, human research, librarian research

Abstract

Objective:  Creating generalizable knowledge across institutions is a step beyond a successful local research project. The purpose of this article is to share the process and lessons learned from expanding a survey tool developed and piloted at a single veterinary college to its deployment at multiple veterinary colleges in the United States and Canada. 

 

Population or problem: Little guidance exists on expanding a survey developed for a single institution to distribution to health professions students across multiple institutions.  

 

Methods:   In June 2016, the first author of the survey contacted librarians from veterinary colleges to explore a possible multi-institution study to investigate student behaviors and perceptions around scientific information. Librarians from twenty-nine institutions initially expressed interest. Those at fifteen institutions participated in initial planning, and eight elected to distribute the survey. Of these, seven submitted for IRB review at their own institution and one institution facilitated the distribution of the survey under the original institution’s IRB exemption.

 

Findings:  The IRB submission process and requirements varied by participating institution. Mean time from submission to approval was 10 days (range: 2-31 days). Several changes were made to the survey based on the recommendations of participating librarians, ranging from simplifying the method of survey distribution to modifying specific questions to make them meaningful across institutions. As participating institutions did not have synchronized academic calendars, the survey distribution took a staggered approach between institutions based on IRB review and varying institutional processes. 

 

Conclusions:   Expanding even a simple IRB-exempt survey from one institution to others requires careful consideration of local practices, attention to differences in the IRB process, and ethical considerations for recruiting students where librarians serve as instructors or hold other positions of influence. Attempts to standardize recruitment messaging and survey questions for generalizable results required compromise by the librarian researchers at participating institutions.

Author Biographies

Erin R B Eldermire

Head, Veterinary Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY

Kristine M Alpi

University Librarian
Oregon Health & Science University
Portland, OR

Suzanne Fricke

Animal Health Librarian
Washington State University
Pullman, WA

Andrea C Kepsel

Health Sciences Educational Technology Librarian
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI

Erin E Kerby

Veterinary Medicine Librarian
University of Illinois
Urbana, IL

Jessica R Page

Head, Veterinary Medicine Library
Ohio State University
Columbus, OH

Hannah F Norton

Chair, Health Science Campus Library
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL

References

Eldermire ERB, Fricke S, Alpi KM, Davies E, Kepsel AC, Norton HF. Information seeking and evaluation: a multi-institutional survey of veterinary students. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Oct 1;107(4):515–26. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.674

Ajuwon GA, Olorunsaye JO. Knowledge, access and usage pattern of HINARI by researchers and clinicians in tertiary health institutions in south-west Nigeria. Afr J Med Med Sci. 2013 Mar;42(1):97–106.

Cheng GY, Lam LM. Information-seeking behavior of health professionals in Hong Kong: a survey of thirty-seven hospitals. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1996 Jan;84(1):32–40.

Addison FJ, Kehoe MA. An assessment of risk associated with the photography of microbiological materials. J Audiov Media Med. 2004 Sep;27(3):102–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01405110400007726

Marshall JG, Sollenberger J, Easterby-Gannett S, Morgan LK, Klem ML, Cavanaugh SK, Oliver KB, Thompson CA, Romanosky N, Hunter S. The value of library and information services in patient care: results of a multisite study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Jan;101(1):38–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.1.007

Mealer M, Flynn L, Ironside P, Spurlock D. Accelerating multisite research in nursing education: navigating institutional review board regulatory issues. J Nurs Educ. 2017 Feb 1;56(2):65–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20170123-02

Sarpel U, Hopkins M, More F, Yavner S, Pusic M, Nick M, Song H, Ellaway R, Kalet A. Medical students as human subjects in educational research - the importance of responder bias. Med Educ Online. 2013 Jan1;18(1):19524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v18i0.20757

North S, Giddens J. Lessons learned in multisite, nursing education research while studying a technology learning innovation. J Nurs Educ. 2013 Sep 13;52(10):567–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20130313-02

Oermann MH, Hallmark BF, Haus C, Kardong-Edgren SE, McColgan JK, Rogers N. Conducting multisite research studies in nursing education: brief practice of CPR skills as an exemplar. J Nurs Educ. 2012 Jan;51(1):23–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20111130-05

Foronda C, Alhusen J. Lessons learned from an international, multisite simulation research study. Nurse Educ. 2016 Aug;41(4):199–203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/nne.0000000000000242

Eldermire ERB, Davies E. Reading behavior of veterinary students: how big (or small) is their picture? In Toronto, Ontario (Canada); 2016.

Webex. Free online meetings & video conferencing | Cisco Webex [Internet]. WebEx. [cited 2019 Dec 12]. Available from: https://www.webex.com/video-conferencing

Qualtrics [Internet]. [cited 2018 Oct 23]. Available from: https://www.qualtrics.com/

Microsoft OneDrive [Internet]. [cited 2019 Dec 12]. Available from: https://products.office.com/en-us/onedrive/onedrive-for-business

Meet cloud content management [Internet]. Box. [cited 2019 Dec 12]. Available from: https://www.box.com/home

Cook E, Kennedy E, McGuire SY. Effect of Teaching Metacognitive Learning Strategies on Performance in General Chemistry Courses. J Chem Educ. 2013 Aug 13;90(8):961–7. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300686h

Duvivier RJ, van Dalen J, Muijtjens AM, Moulaert VR, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of clinical skills. BMC Med Educ. 2011 Dec 6;11:101. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199366149.003.0005

Millum J. Canada’s new ethical guidelines for research with humans: a critique and comparison with the United States. Can Med Assoc J. 2012 Apr 3;184(6):657–61. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.111217

Hodge JG, Gostin LO. Revamping the US Federal Common Rule: Modernizing Human Participant Research Regulations. J Am Med Assoc. 2017 Apr 18;317(15):1521–2. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.1633

Single IRB policy for multi-site research | grants.nih.gov [Internet]. [cited 2020 Jan 29]. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/single-irb-policy-multi-site-research.htm

Conducting Surveys [Internet]. Office of Academic Affairs, The Ohio State University. 2017 [cited 2020 Mar 3]. Available from: https://oaa.osu.edu/conducting-surveys

Downloads

Published

2021-02-25 — Updated on 2021-02-25

Versions

How to Cite

Eldermire, E., Alpi, K., Fricke, S. ., Kepsel, A., Kerby, E. E., Page, J. R., & Norton, H. F. (2021). Expanding a single-institution survey to multiple institutions: Lessons learned in research design and deployment. Hypothesis, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.18060/23945

Issue

Section

Research