| Course | EDP 820 Ethics and Professional Standards in Psychology |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Doctoral review and consent paper |
| Length | About 1,027 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Education |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for EDP 820 Module 6
Signed but Not Understood: Improving Consent in a Student Mental Health Study
Student Name
Doctor of Education Program, Aspen University
EDP 820: Ethics and Professional Standards in Psychology
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Signed but Not Understood: Improving Consent in a Student Mental Health Study
Maya, the doctoral student introduced in an earlier module, submitted her dissertation proposal to the composite Columbus university's institutional review board. She plans an online survey of five hundred undergraduates about depression, loneliness and suicidal thoughts, followed by interviews with thirty who volunteer. Her draft consent form is four pages long. Ruth, now a board member, was assigned as the primary reviewer. Maya's study and the board are fictional. This paper presents Ruth's review.
What Makes Research Ethical
Emanuel et al. (2000) proposed seven requirements that together make clinical research ethical. Social or scientific value: the research must answer a question worth answering. Scientific validity: it must be designed to answer it. Fair subject selection: participants must be chosen for scientific reasons, not convenience or vulnerability. Favorable risk-benefit ratio: the study must keep risks low and worth what it may achieve. Independent review: people without a stake in the research must evaluate it. Informed consent: participants must understand and voluntarily agree. Respect for enrolled subjects: researchers must protect participants' privacy and welfare throughout, including allowing them to withdraw.
What Improves Understanding
Flory and Emanuel (2004) systematically reviewed studies testing interventions to improve research participants' understanding during consent. They grouped interventions into multimedia, such as videos; enhanced consent forms, such as simplified or reorganized documents; extended discussion, such as additional time with a study team member; and test-and-feedback, in which participants answered questions and received corrections. Multimedia and enhanced forms showed limited and inconsistent effects. Extended person-to-person discussion was the most consistently effective, and test-and-feedback approaches also showed promise. The findings suggest that understanding comes from conversation more than documents.
What Is Known About Review Boards
Abbott and Grady (2011) systematically reviewed empirical studies of institutional review boards. They found wide variation among boards in their decisions, processes and requirements for the same studies, and long review times at some institutions. Little research examined whether board review actually improved the protection of participants. The authors called for research on outcomes and for greater consistency. For Ruth, the findings suggest that a board's decisions should be explained, so that researchers understand them and boards can be held accountable for their reasoning.
| Requirement | Maya's study | Improvement |
|---|---|---|
| Value | Important question about student mental health | None needed |
| Validity | Sound survey; interview sample purposive | Clarify interview selection criteria |
| Fair selection | All undergraduates eligible | Ensure students in Maya's own classes are excluded |
| Risk-benefit | Questions on suicidal thoughts may cause distress | Safety protocol; resources listed on every page |
| Independent review | Board review under way | Board states reasoning in writing |
| Informed consent | Four-page form; no check of understanding | Short summary; brief conversation before interviews; three-question check |
| Respect for participants | Withdrawal allowed | Clear plan when a participant discloses risk |
Improving Consent
Following Flory and Emanuel's findings, Ruth recommended that Maya replace the four-page form for the survey with a one-page summary covering the purpose, the sensitive questions, confidentiality and its limits, the right to skip questions and stop and mental health resources. For interviews, Maya will hold a brief conversation before each interview to explain the study and answer questions, then ask three short questions to check understanding, such as what happens if a participant mentions thoughts of suicide.
Participant Safety
The survey includes questions about suicidal thoughts. Respect for enrolled participants requires a plan. Participants who report current suicidal thoughts will see an immediate screen with crisis resources and the campus counseling center's contact information. For interviews, Maya's supervisor, a licensed psychologist, will be available by phone, and Maya will follow a written protocol for assessing risk and connecting participants with help. The consent summary will state these limits of confidentiality plainly.
Fair Selection
Maya teaches an undergraduate section. Students in her own classes will be excluded to avoid any sense of pressure, an application of fair selection and voluntariness.
Voluntariness for Students
University students are a convenient population, which raises questions of voluntariness. Students may feel pressure to participate in research by faculty or graduate students who teach them, and course credit for participation can blur the line between invitation and requirement. Emanuel et al. (2000) included fair subject selection among their requirements partly to prevent convenient groups from bearing burdens because they are easy to reach. Beyond excluding her own students, Maya will recruit through a general university email rather than in classes, and will offer a small gift card rather than course credit, so that participation does not affect grades.
Data Security
Data about suicidal thoughts are highly sensitive. Survey responses will be collected without names unless participants volunteer for interviews, in which case contact information will be stored separately from responses. Interview recordings will be transcribed, stripped of identifying details and deleted after transcription. Access will be limited to Maya and her supervisor.
Explaining the Board's Reasoning
Abbott and Grady (2011) found wide variation in what boards require, which can leave researchers frustrated and unsure why changes are demanded. Ruth's review letter explained each requested change with its reason and source, such as the evidence on consent conversations, so that Maya could understand the board's thinking and apply it in future studies.
Honoring Withdrawal
Participants may withdraw at any time. For the survey, they can close the browser; partial responses will be kept only if they reach the final page and agree. For interviews, participants can stop at any point and ask that their recording be deleted, and Maya will confirm deletion in writing. Respect for enrolled participants, the last of the seven requirements in Emanuel et al. (2000), means making withdrawal easy rather than merely permitted.
A Note on Payment
Maya planned to pay interview participants twenty dollars. The board considered whether this could be coercive for students with little money and concluded that the amount compensated time without being large enough to override judgment.
Conclusion
Emanuel and colleagues' seven requirements provided the framework for reviewing Maya's study, Flory and Emanuel showed that conversation improves understanding more than longer forms and Abbott and Grady showed why boards should explain their reasoning. Ruth's review approved the study with changes that make consent a conversation and protect participants who are struggling.
References
Abbott, L., & Grady, C. (2011). A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.3
Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA, 283(20), 2701-2711. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.20.2701
Flory, J., & Emanuel, E. (2004). Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research: A systematic review. JAMA, 292(13), 1593-1601. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.13.1593
Reading the EDP 820 Module 6 assignment instructions
The sixth module of EDP 820 typically asks for a paper on institutional review and informed consent. Follow the Module 6 instructions in your Aspen course; the study is a composite. Explain a framework for what makes research ethical. Review evidence on informed consent, especially participants' understanding. Consider what is known about how review boards function. Evaluate a specific study's consent process and propose improvements. Use APA 7, and treat consent as a process of understanding rather than a signature on a form. Where your study involves sensitive topics, plan for participants who become distressed or disclose risk, and state the limits of confidentiality in plain words.
Inside the EDP 820 Module 6 example
Maya, the composite doctoral student, proposes a survey of undergraduates on depression and suicidal thoughts with follow-up interviews. Emanuel, Wendler and Grady offer a seven-part test of ethical research, covering who is recruited, whether risks are worth it and who reviews the study. Flory and Emanuel's review of interventions to improve understanding finds extended discussion most effective. Abbott and Grady's review finds wide variation among review boards and little evidence on whether they protect participants. A seven-row table evaluates the study against each requirement, and improvements include a brief conversation before interviews, a check of understanding and a safety protocol for distressed participants. Sections address voluntariness for students, data security and what the board asked the researcher to explain.
Reading the EDP 820 Module 6 grading rubric
A strong consent paper evaluates a study against a framework and uses evidence to improve understanding. This example applies all seven requirements to the dissertation, identifying strengths and gaps. It uses Flory and Emanuel's findings to choose a consent improvement with evidence behind it, rather than lengthening the form. The review board evidence is used to explain why the board should state its reasoning. Participant safety in a sensitive study is addressed concretely, including what happens when a participant discloses suicidal thoughts. It also addresses voluntariness in a student population and the security of sensitive data, and it shows the board explaining its reasoning to the researcher, applying the evidence that boards vary and should be accountable. The consent check is specific enough to use.
EDP 820 Module 6 help from the desk
Consent papers often focus on the form. Treat consent as understanding. Use a framework to evaluate the whole study, not only consent. Choose improvements with evidence, such as discussion and checks of understanding. Address risks specific to the topic, such as distress in mental health research. Note limits of review boards and how to make their reasoning transparent. Address voluntariness where participants depend on the researcher or institution. Plan data security for sensitive information. Explain the board's reasoning to the researcher. Make any check of understanding specific, with the actual questions you would ask. Show how withdrawal will be honored in practice.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More EDP 820 and Doctor of Education sample papers
- EDP 820 Module 1: Ethical Principles and Professional Standards
- EDP 820 Module 2: Ethical Judgment and Decision Making
- EDP 820 Module 3: Ethics in Leadership
- EDP 820 Module 4: Organizational Ethics
- EDP 820 Module 5: The History of Research Ethics
- EDP 820 Module 7: Protecting Research Participants
- EDP 820 Module 8: An Ethics Plan for a Research Study
- EDP 812 Module 6: Reducing Stress at Work
- EDN 814 Module 5: Planning the Self-Study
- EDN 820 Module 1: EBP, QI and Research Compared
- EDN 818 Module 3: Complex Adaptive Systems in Practice
EDP 820 Module 6 questions, answered
What does EDP 820 Module 6 usually ask for?
Aspen's EDP 820 covers institutional review and informed consent in this module, so a paper evaluating a study's consent process and proposing improvements is typical. Read your Module 6 prompt.
What makes clinical research ethical?
Emanuel, Wendler and Grady proposed seven requirements: value, scientific validity, fair subject selection, favorable risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for enrolled participants.
How can researchers improve participants' understanding?
Flory and Emanuel found extended person-to-person discussion was the most consistently effective intervention; multimedia and enhanced forms had limited effects.
Where can I find a free EDP 820 Module 6 sample paper?
The full paper is on this page: seven requirements for ethical research, evidence on improving understanding and an evaluation of a dissertation's consent process.
Do review boards protect participants?
Abbott and Grady found wide variation among boards and little empirical evidence about whether their review actually improves protection.