irb redesign

feb 2013sahana kumar

This project is about taking a really dense and detailed

form and simplifying it. The form is used to ensure that

all human subjects in research are protected. It is long

and redundant and hard for researchers to fill out. We

reorganized and essentially redesigned it.

brainstormingThe IRB is not an easy thing to approach. I started by looking at the orig-

inal purpose of the form, the the context in which it is used. I determined

that the form was used mainly by the IRB to ensure that no boundaries

are crossed and that human subjects remain safe. That means that the

researchers must be detailed and hit every point, but the form should be

approachable and helpful, as the researcher is the one filling it out. There

must be a balance between the researchers needs and the IRB’s needs.

I also looked at other forms that I have experienced that I found to be

daunting, like the Common App, just to look at how they split up ques-

tions and how they phrase them.

I started off by cutting the IRB up into its sections and identifying the sim-

plest summary of the questions they asked. That is how I came to “Who

am I?” “What am I doing?” I also rearranged sections at this time. My

strategy involved creating a storyline kind of the way a conversation about

the IRB would go. It would start off asking the researcher who they are,

who they’re working with, what their project is about, etc. Then it would

delve into more detailed questions - which the IRB is more interested in

for THEIR purposes. We wouldn’t get there till later in the form so that the

researcher would feel more comfortable at that point.

My final order was: About the P.I, About Co-Investigators, Protocol: What,

Where, How, Consent, Benefits and Risks, Compensation, Co-operating

institutions, Conflict of Interest, Confidentiality and Data Security, Funding,

and Assurance statement.

brainstorming cntd

My next step was to dissect each section and identify the

parts of each question. I discovered that the form is literal-

ly full of conditional questions. This, in my opinion, is what

made the form so hard to comprehend. I identified all of

the conditional parts of questions as I went through, and

shifted some questions around if I thought it was appropri-

ate. My biggest concern were the conditionals. I knew that

I wanted to find a new way to approach them to simplify

the experience for researchers.

brainstorming cntd

My first draft involved a three column grid. This proved to be a problem

later. I introduced my attempt at tackling conditionals: boxes. The title of

the box is the question, and the inside content only applies to those who

answer the question. I wanted the box to be a boundary that the reader

would not even have to cross if the question did not apply to them. My

font choice was meant to be clear and no nonsense while my language

was direct and friendly.

I have a tendency to make things huge and dense. I definitely made that

mistake here. My type was big and my type input rectanges were bigger.

The entire form was too heavy and dark, and my first change was to

zlighten up everything.

iteration 1description

reflection

I shrunk my text and moved my margins in, but I did not include enough

space for text. Also, I still had problems with determining the order of

the questions. I approached the issue of conditionals within conditionals.

Visually, it was slightly confusing to have boxes within boxes.

I shrunk my text size for this iteration and delved further into the form,

dealing with more complicated parts of the form. I still was misusing the

grid, and the path was ambiguous.

iteration 2 iteration 3

I shrunk certain elements and tried to move things around, and added

more space for the questions that needed longer responses. Also, in this

version, I eliminated boxes within conditionals as an experiment. Faced

issues with the last page’s huge amounts of text.

iteration 4

In my final, I made some major changes. I drasti-

cally simplified the layout by trying to use mainly

the first two columns. I included letters to indicate

which order people should read in. I moved con-

ditional questions within their box so as to reduce

confusion about what they were referring to. All in

all, my changes were to fix things I had done wti-

hout considering the user. Getting feedback from

people who did not see my form too often was

helpful because I could not ignore the recurring

confusing issues. Although I still have issues that I

brought upon myself with the three column grid, I

am happy with how my form turned out. I think it is

useful and friendly to researchers, while also being

thorough and collecting enough information for the

IRB.

final