A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Psychotherapy
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Overcoming a Primary Barrier to Practice-Based Research: Access to an
Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Independent Ethics Review
Travis L. Osborne
Evidence Based Treatment Centers of Seattle,
Seattle, Washington
Jason B. Luoma
Portland Psychotherapy Clinic, Research, & Training Center,
Portland, Oregon
Practice-based research is an important means of bridging the gap between the science and practice of
psychotherapy. Unfortunately, numerous barriers exist for clinicians who want to conduct research in
practice settings. One specific barrier that has received minimal attention in the literature—lack of access
to institutional review board (IRB) oversight for independent ethics review— can impede the ability to
carry out and disseminate research projects. This article identifies reasons that practice-based researchers
may want to seek IRB review even when not required, reviews the pros and cons of a range of strategies
that some practice-based researchers have used to try and address lack of access to an IRB, and describes
a novel solution for this problem: the creation of the Behavioral Health Research Collective IRB, a
nonprofit IRB whose mission is to provide ethical oversight to practice-based researchers. The authors
describe their experiences of developing and running the Behavioral Health Research Collective IRB,
with the intent of providing a model for other professionals to create similar mechanisms for supporting
practice-based research.
Keywords: practice-based research, institutional review board, ethics review
Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pst0000166.supp
Early in the history of the field of psychology, the scientist–
practitioner model emerged as a means to train psychologists who
could both apply the products of science and also produce scien-
tific research (Lampropoulos et al., 2002). Despite the dominance
of the scientist–practitioner model in doctoral-level training pro-
grams (Chang, Lee, & Hargreaves, 2008), most psychologists
choose either a research-focused career path largely divorced from
clinical practice or a clinically focused career path in which they
rarely engage in research (Goldfried & Wolfe, 1996). The result is
that most researchers work in isolation from the practice of psy-
chotherapy and most psychotherapists have little regular contact
with research (Goldfried et al., 2015;Teachman et al., 2012).
Arguably, this is not an optimal state for the field or the
dissemination of evidence-based psychotherapy. The advancement
of clinical psychological science requires a two-way dialogue with
practitioners who can provide their contextually situated knowl-
edge of the day-to-day practice of clinical intervention within
systems of care (Vivian et al., 2012). Practice-based research refers
to the kind of research conducted in naturalistic care settings that
has the potential to foster a bidirectional interaction between
research and practice. This type of research is typically conducted
by, or in conjunction with, practitioners working in clinical as
opposed to academic settings. Case studies, controlled single-case
designs, psychotherapy process studies, and effectiveness studies
are all examples of common types of practice-based research
methodologies. Proponents of practice-based research argue that it
is of great value to psychotherapists, policymakers, and other
researchers (Barkham, Hardy, & Mellor-Clark, 2010;Castonguay
& Muran, 2016).
As the most common employment setting for clinical psychol-
ogists remains individual and group practice (41% of those sam-
pled by Norcross & Karpiak, 2012), these settings are the primary
targets for the development of practice-based research capacity.
Unfortunately, research shows that the modal number of publica-
tions for clinical psychologists is zero and that few publish more
than a handful of papers during their careers (Norcross, Karpiak, &
Santoro, 2005). The result is that most research is being conducted
by a relatively small handful of psychologists in academic settings
and that the research abilities of many psychologists are being
underutilized.
Although one of the main barriers to practice-based research is
the reality that many practicing psychologists do not wish to
conduct research, for those who do, various means of building
capacity for such research have been proposed, including changes
Travis L. Osborne, Evidence Based Treatment Centers of Seattle, Seat-
tle, Washington; Jason B. Luoma, Portland Psychotherapy Clinic, Re-
search, & Training Center, Portland, Oregon.
We thank and acknowledge the following individuals for their signifi-
cant contributions to the BHRC IRB: Jennifer Sayrs, Linda Dimeff, An-
drew White, Jennifer Tininenko, Polina Eidelman, Julie Wilchins, Paul
Gauthier, Kathryn Patricelli, and Krystal Visser. Additionally, we thank the
following individuals and organizations for their consultation related to
forming and running the BHRC IRB: Susan Publicover, Paul Ahern, HRP
Consulting Group, and Apgar and Associates. Finally, we also thank
Jaqueline Persons, Kelly Koerner, and R. Trent Codd for their feedback on
earlier drafts of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Travis L.
Osborne, Evidence Based Treatment Centers of Seattle, 1200 5th Avenue,
Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98101. E-mail: tosborne@ebtseattle.com
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Psychotherapy © 2018 American Psychological Association
2018, Vol. 55, No. 3, 255–262 0033-3204/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pst0000166
255
