🤖 How IRBWiz Analyzes Your Protocol
IRBWiz reads the narratives you write in each section and acts as an IRB pre-reviewer. It identifies gaps, inconsistencies, and potential concerns — asking the same clarifying questions a real IRB reviewer would. This gives you the chance to strengthen your submission before it reaches the board.
📋 What the Feedback Means
On each step (3–8) you'll see an Analyze Section button. On Step 9 you'll see a full assessment. The feedback is advisory — it tells you what a reviewer would likely ask and flags anything that could cause a revision request or delay your approval.
How IRBWiz Determines Your Review Level
Your activity doesn't require IRB review
The activity you described does not meet the federal definition of "research" — it is not a systematic investigation designed to produce generalizable knowledge. No IRB review is required, but you should document this decision.
Evaluating a new co-teaching model in your own school district
A doctoral student is a curriculum director who piloted a co-teaching model across three middle schools. They collected teacher satisfaction surveys and student outcome data to decide whether to expand the program. Findings will be shared in an internal district report — not published or presented externally.
Assessing student satisfaction with a new advising portal at UB
A professor surveys graduate students about their experience with a new online advising system. The results will be used only to improve the system internally. There is no plan to publish or generalize the findings beyond the institution.
- Your study is designed to improve a specific local program, not to contribute to a broader body of knowledge
- You indicated no plans to publish, present at conferences, or share findings outside your institution
- The primary purpose is operational, instructional, or administrative — not scientific inquiry
- The activity may fall under journalism, oral history, or public benefit program evaluation exemptions
- If you mention plans to publish or present externally — this changes the determination
- If your methods look like systematic research (control groups, pre/post-testing, hypothesis testing)
- If you plan to share results with other districts, institutions, or professional organizations
- If your dissertation committee is requiring IRB approval — check with them, as some institutions require it even for QI work
Research, but no human subjects involvement
Your activity is research, but it does not involve human subjects as defined by federal regulations. You are likely working with existing records, public data, or de-identified information where you cannot link data back to any individual.
Analysis of de-identified state assessment data to study achievement gaps
A doctoral student downloads publicly available, de-identified district-level test score data from the CT State Department of Education. No individual students are identifiable. The researcher analyzes trends without ever interacting with students or accessing private records.
Content analysis of published school board meeting minutes
A researcher analyzes 10 years of publicly posted school board minutes to trace how equity language in policy evolved. All documents are public records. No living individuals are contacted or observed.
- No living individuals are subject to intervention or interaction
- No identifiable private information about living individuals is obtained
- Data is fully de-identified and cannot be re-linked to individuals
- You are using only publicly available information with no reasonable expectation of privacy
- If you mention retaining school names, teacher names, or district identifiers alongside individual data
- If your data was collected under FERPA protections (school records) — requires a data sharing agreement
- If you describe "anonymized" data but your methods could allow re-identification (e.g., small school + grade + disability status)
- If you plan to interview anyone about the data — that interaction triggers human subjects rules
Exempt from full review — limited review required
Your research involves human subjects but falls into one of the federal exempt categories. An IRB administrator must confirm the exemption — you cannot self-certify. Allow 1–2 weeks for this review. This is the most common outcome for Ed.D. survey studies.
Anonymous online survey of teachers about instructional coaching experiences
A doctoral student sends a Qualtrics survey to 150 K–12 teachers in the study district via email. The survey asks about their satisfaction with peer coaching, perceived barriers to implementation, and professional growth. No names or identifying information are collected. Participation is voluntary and responses are anonymous. The student plans to publish findings in their dissertation and potentially in a peer-reviewed journal.
Analysis of existing student gradebook data with FERPA waiver
A doctoral student is also an assistant principal who has routine access to student grades and attendance records. With district approval and a proper FERPA exception, they analyze existing records to study whether a new attendance intervention program correlated with grade improvements. No new data is collected from students.
Comparing two instructional methods within a standard classroom setting
A faculty member compares student writing improvement across two sections of the same course — one using peer feedback, one using instructor feedback. Both are standard educational practices. No additional data is collected beyond normal course assignments. Results are presented at a faculty conference.
- Your survey or observation study involves minimal risk to participants
- Data is collected anonymously or cannot reasonably be linked back to individuals
- Topics are not sensitive enough to cause harm if disclosed (no criminal liability, job risk, or stigma)
- You are studying normal educational practices within established curriculum settings
- You are using existing records collected for non-research purposes
- Will Qualtrics capture IP addresses or any browser metadata that could indirectly identify anonymous respondents? If so, how will this be handled?
- Your survey asks teachers about their school's administration. If responses were traced back to individuals, could this affect their employment? Please describe how anonymity is protected.
- You state data is 'anonymous,' but you are the principal of the school. How will you prevent participants from feeling pressured to participate or respond in a particular way given your supervisory role?
- The survey includes questions about classroom discipline practices. If a teacher disclosed behavior that raised safeguarding concerns, how would that be handled?
Expedited review — minimal risk, identifiable participants
Your research involves human subjects at minimal risk, but participants are identifiable (e.g., audio/video recorded, signed consent), or involves methods that don't qualify for exemption. Reviewed by one or two designated IRB members rather than the full board. This is the most common outcome for Ed.D. interview and focus group studies.
Semi-structured interviews with school principals about distributed leadership practices
A doctoral student conducts 45–60 minute recorded Zoom interviews with 12 building principals across the district. Participants are asked about their decision-making processes, how they delegate responsibilities, and their perceptions of teacher leadership. Interviews will be transcribed and de-identified in the final dissertation. Participants will sign a consent form.
Focus groups with parents about barriers to family engagement in Title I schools
A researcher conducts four focus groups of 5–8 parents each at a Title I elementary school. Groups are held in English and Spanish. Audio recorded. Topics include transportation challenges, communication with teachers, and comfort level attending school events. Participants are compensated with a $15 gift card. Signed consent is obtained in participants' preferred language.
Interviews with teachers and anonymous surveys with high school students about social-emotional learning
A doctoral student conducts recorded interviews with 10 teachers about SEL implementation in their classrooms AND administers an anonymous survey to 200 students (ages 14–18) about their perceived sense of belonging and emotional safety. The student component is anonymous and exempt; the teacher interview component requires expedited review due to audio recording.
Classroom observations combined with teacher interviews on co-teaching effectiveness
A researcher conducts structured observations of 8 co-taught classrooms over 6 weeks, then interviews each teacher pair. Observation notes are de-identified. Interviews are audio recorded with signed consent. No students are interviewed; only their naturally occurring classroom behavior is observed (non-participatory observation).
- You are conducting recorded interviews or focus groups where participants are identifiable
- You are collecting signed consent — meaning participants are not anonymous
- Your study involves observations of naturally occurring behavior in professional settings
- Participants may discuss professionally sensitive topics (job performance, leadership, relationships with supervisors)
- Your study fits one of the 9 expedited review categories under federal regulations
- You are interviewing teachers in the district where you are also employed as an administrator. How will you manage the power dynamic to ensure participants feel free to decline or withdraw without professional consequences?
- Your focus group topics include family immigration status and financial hardship. Since focus group confidentiality cannot be guaranteed by the researcher (other participants may share what was said), how will you disclose this limitation in the consent process?
- You describe classroom observations but do not specify whether you will record student behavior or only teacher behavior. Please clarify what data will be collected about students and whether parental permission is required.
- You plan to interview parents in Spanish but your consent form is in English only. How will you ensure informed consent for non-English-speaking participants?
- Your interview guide is not attached to the application. IRBWiz recommends including your full interview protocol as IRB reviewers typically require it for expedited studies.
Full Board review — greater than minimal risk
Your research poses more than minimal risk to participants, involves legally vulnerable populations (prisoners, pregnant women), or involves children where the research design requires board-level ethical deliberation. This requires a majority vote at a convened IRB meeting. Allow 4–8 weeks.
Interviews with students with disabilities (ages 10–14) about their inclusion experiences
A doctoral student wants to interview 20 students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) — ages 10–14 — about how included they feel in general education classrooms. The research involves children (Subpart D), addresses potentially emotionally sensitive topics (being different, being excluded), and requires both parental permission AND child assent. The IRB must make specific findings under 45 CFR 46 Subpart D about the risk-benefit balance for this population.
Study of GED program effectiveness at a juvenile detention facility
A researcher proposes to survey and interview incarcerated youth (ages 15–17) at a juvenile correctional facility about their experiences in a GED program. Any research involving prisoners — even surveys — automatically requires Full Board review under Subpart C, and the board must include a prisoner or prisoner advocate representative.
Interviews with students who experienced school trauma or violence
A researcher proposes to interview 25 high school students (ages 14–18) who were present during a school lockdown event. Topics include their emotional response during the event, lasting psychological effects, and perceived school safety. The emotionally sensitive nature of the topics, combined with the age of participants (minors), requires Full Board review. An adverse event protocol and referral resources must be in place.
Study using confederate students to test teacher bias in classroom interactions
Researchers train graduate student confederates to pose as struggling learners in teacher professional development workshops to test whether teachers respond differently based on perceived student race/ethnicity. The use of active deception — where participants do not know they are being observed in a testing situation — combined with the professionally sensitive nature of the findings (implicit bias) requires Full Board review and thorough debriefing protocols.
- Your study involves children (under 18) where risk exceeds minimal or direct benefit cannot justify risk
- You are studying incarcerated individuals of any age — automatically Subpart C
- Topics involve emotional distress, trauma, abuse, or highly sensitive personal experiences
- You are using deception that could cause psychological harm or professional consequence
- Your study involves cognitively impaired individuals with limited decisional capacity
- Risk is described as more than minimal — exceeds what people encounter in daily life
- Your study involves students with IEPs ages 10–14. Under 45 CFR 46 Subpart D, the board must determine whether the research presents greater than minimal risk and whether there is a prospect of direct benefit to individual participants. Please explain what direct benefit, if any, individual participants receive from taking part.
- You describe interviewing students about a traumatic event. What is your stopping procedure if a participant becomes distressed during the interview? Who on your team is qualified to provide immediate support, and what referral resources will be available?
- Your study requires parental permission AND child assent. Your assent process is described only as 'verbal.' Given the sensitivity of the topics, the board is likely to require written assent. Please describe your assent process in detail and consider including the assent script as a supplemental document.
- For the deception study: you have not provided scientific justification for why the research question cannot be answered without the use of deception. This justification is required for board approval. Please address this in the procedures section.
- You do not describe an adverse event monitoring plan. For studies with greater-than-minimal risk, 45 CFR 46.111(a)(6) requires adequate provisions for monitoring the safety of participants. Please describe how adverse events will be identified, recorded, and reported.
🔗 IRBWiz in the Symbiotic Scholar Suite
IRBWiz is designed as a standalone module that works on its own or as part of your broader research workflow in the Symbiotic Scholar Suite.
🎓 Built for Ed.D. Researchers
Designed around the most common UB doctoral research scenarios: qualitative interviews, survey studies, mixed methods, classroom observations, and education policy research.
📄 Document Generation
Step 10 automatically generates your Protocol Description, Exempt Information Sheet, or full Informed Consent Form using UB's official July 2025 template — ready to attach to your Sitero Mentor submission.
🤖 AI Pre-Review
The AI reviewer reads your narrative descriptions and asks the same questions a real IRB reviewer would ask — helping you identify and fix gaps before formal submission, saving weeks of revision cycles.
✅ Consistency Checking
IRBWiz automatically cross-checks your answers across all 10 sections — flagging contradictions like describing "anonymous" data in one section but collecting names in another.
📬 UB IRB Contact
IRB Office: irb@bridgeport.edu
Phone: (203) 576-4974
Platform: Sitero Mentor IRB
CITI Training: 3-year validity required
🔄 Auto-Deploy
Every update pushed to GitHub automatically deploys a new version via Vercel — keeping the tool current without any manual steps for students or faculty.