| Course | GB891 Doctoral Project II: Project Design and Implementation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Review board application |
| Length | About 900 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB891 Unit 3
Fourteen Sections and an Unsigned Letter: A Unit 3 Review Board Application for a Workplace Safety Study
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB891: Doctoral Project II: Project Design and Implementation
Unit 3 Review Board Application
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Corliss Baking Company, its agencies and every detail are composite and illustrative; this is a draft described by its parts, no review board has acted, and the regulations and sources cited are real.
How the Application Is Organized
Institutional review board forms differ, but most ask for the same elements in a similar order, because they follow what the federal regulations require boards to consider (Protection of Human Subjects, 2018). This draft follows that order in fourteen sections. Each is summarized below with the decisions it records.
Sections 1 to 3: Summary, Question and Design
The lay summary, written for a board member outside management or safety, explains in three short paragraphs that the study tests whether weekly feedback to bakery shift supervisors about how often they discuss safety changes their crews' sense of how seriously safety is taken and their willingness to report near misses. The research question and the quasi-experimental design follow, with the two intervention plants, the two comparison plants and the twelve-week period.
Section 4: Populations
Three populations take part: associates employed directly by Corliss, associates placed at Corliss by two staffing agencies, and shift supervisors. The application states that agency associates are included because the study's question concerns crews with many temporary workers, and that excluding them would remove the population the study is about.
Section 5: Recruitment
Recruitment refers to the Unit 4 plan. The section states that no one in a supervisory or management role at Corliss or at either agency will recruit participants or learn who agreed or declined.
Section 6: Consent
The four consent documents from Unit 2 are attached. The section requests oral consent without signature for pulse questions and surveys, as minimal-risk procedures, and signed consent for supervisor interviews.
Section 7: Risks and Protections
The risk table lists five risks, each with a likelihood and a protection. Perceived coercion arising from the candidate's role as safety manager is rated likely; protections include a research assistant outside the company, consent language promising no discipline and no reporting of refusals. A supervisor inferring who answered in a small crew is rated possible; the protection is the rule that no crew score is reported from fewer than three answers. Retaliation for reporting near misses, by coworkers or supervisors who see reports as complaints, is rated possible; the protection is an anonymous reporting form with no identifier. Injury during observation is rated unlikely but serious; observers stop and intervene, as the protocol requires. Breach of data is rated unlikely; protections are described in Section 10.
Section 8: Observation and the Duty to Intervene
This section, often missing from social science applications, describes what an observer does on seeing an imminent hazard. An observer who sees someone on the verge of injury, for instance a hand reaching into a jammed conveyor that is still running, drops the observation and acts immediately, shouting a warning or getting the line lead's attention. The event is recorded without names, the sample is discarded and the candidate is informed. The section states that safety always takes precedence over data collection.
Section 9: Benefits
The section states that participants are not expected to benefit directly, and that the possible benefit to Corliss and to other employers is better evidence on whether supervisory feedback works in high-turnover crews. A similar intervention reduced minor injuries in stable manufacturing groups (Zohar, 2002), but no study has tested it where crews change constantly, which is the condition this study adds.
Section 10: Data Security
Each crew is identified by a code. The research assistant holds the only key linking codes to crews and plants, on an encrypted drive outside the Corliss network. Interview recordings are deleted after transcription. All data are deleted five years after the study ends.
Section 11: Conflict of Interest
The candidate discloses employment by Corliss as corporate safety manager, reporting to the chief operating officer, and states that the study's findings could affect the candidate's own work and standing. The protections against coercion in Section 7 respond to this conflict.
Sections 12 to 14: Sites, Letters and Investigator Information
The sites section lists the four study plants and the pilot plant. Letters of cooperation from Corliss and from both staffing agencies are attached as unsigned placeholders, each committing the organization not to seek individual responses and not to act against anyone who declines. The investigator section lists the candidate and chair.
Every status field is left open, because an application that describes approvals not yet granted has already failed the honesty the board exists to protect.
Why the Agencies Must Sign
The staffing agencies are not research sites in the usual sense, but they employ many of the participants. If an agency could learn which of its workers declined, or could treat participation as a factor in future placements, the consent protections at Corliss would mean little. The Belmont principle that people must be free to decide for themselves applies to the agency relationship as much as to the host employer (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979), which is why the application treats the agencies' letters as required rather than optional.
References
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. pt. 46 (2018).
Zohar, D. (2002). Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: A leadership-based intervention model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 156-163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.156
What the GB891 Unit 3 assignment asks for
Unit 3 in GB891 asks you to prepare your institutional review board application. Organize it in the order your board's form uses, which usually follows what the federal regulations require boards to consider. Write a lay summary a board member outside your field could follow. Describe each population and justify including any group that may be vulnerable to pressure. Refer to your recruitment plan and attach consent documents. Build a risk table that rates each risk's likelihood and matches it to a protection, without understating risks your position creates. Describe any procedure the board may not expect, such as an observer's duty to intervene. State benefits honestly. Describe data security and disclose conflicts of interest fully. Attach letters of cooperation and leave every status field open until a decision exists. Around twenty pages following the board's section order is common.
How the GB 891 Unit 3 example is put together
The application opens by explaining that its fourteen sections follow the order boards use under the regulations. The lay summary, question and design follow, then three populations, with agency associates included because the study concerns their crews. Recruitment refers to Unit 4, and consent requests oral consent for pulse questions. The risk table rates five risks, with perceived coercion marked likely, as the margin note highlights. Section 8 describes stopping observation when someone is about to be hurt. Benefits cite Zohar's earlier result in stable groups. Data security, a conflict of interest statement and unsigned letters follow, with the highlighted sentence on open status fields. A closing section explains, using the Belmont Report, why the staffing agencies must sign.
Where the points sit in the GB891 Unit 3 rubric
GB891 instructors grade the review board application on completeness and candor. Following the board's section order earns credit because it makes review easier. The lay summary should be understandable to someone outside the field. Populations should be described with a justification for including any group vulnerable to pressure. The risk table carries significant weight, and rating the researcher's own position as a likely source of coercion shows honesty boards value. Unusual procedures, such as a duty to intervene, should be described explicitly. Benefits must not be overstated. Conflict of interest disclosure should connect the conflict to specific protections. Letters attached unsigned, with open status fields, show the application describes intentions accurately rather than claiming approvals.
GB891 Unit 3 help: mistakes that cost points
Many GB891 applications describe risks as minimal without considering how the researcher's role affects participants. Others leave out vulnerable groups, such as temporary workers, to avoid scrutiny, which removes the population the study concerns. Students often omit procedures boards do not expect, such as what an observer does when someone is about to be hurt. Benefits are overstated, and conflict of interest sections are a single sentence. Some drafts describe letters as signed when they are not. Follow the form's order, write a plain summary, justify each population, rate risks honestly with protections, describe unusual procedures, state benefits modestly, disclose conflicts fully and leave status fields open. If you are preparing an application, a writer can help organize it.
Get a GB891 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Your institution's review board template matters most, so send it first, then a paragraph describing the project, plus the Unit 3 rubric. The draft that comes back follows that template section by section, pairs every named risk with a protection and leaves each signature, number and decision for you. First custom sample free, generally within 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB891 papers and MBA samples
- GB891 Unit 1: Protocol Document
- GB891 Unit 2: Consent Language Draft
- GB891 Unit 4: Recruitment Plan
- GB891 Unit 5: Pilot Test Summary
- GB891 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB891 Unit 7: Collection Log
- GB891 Unit 8: Fidelity Monitoring Memo
- GB891 Unit 9: Deviation Report
- GB891 Unit 10: Implementation Chapter Draft
- GB890 Unit 3: Search Documentation
- GB815 Unit 3: Evidence Mapping Exercise
- GB500 Unit 3: Marketing Mix Application
- GB794 Unit 3: Experiment Design Memo
GB891 Unit 3 questions, answered
Does the sample include an approved application?
No. It shows how the sections of a complete application are organized and argued, and it leaves every signature, reference number, submission step and decision to you and your institution. Actual submission happens through your institution's own system, and approval, if granted, belongs to your project alone. The draft only models the content.
Why do insider projects need a long conflict of interest section?
Because the researcher's job gives participants reasons to feel pressure or fear consequences, whatever the researcher intends. Boards want to see the relationship described honestly and a structure that separates data from authority, such as an assistant who holds identifiers and reports outside the management chain. A short disclosure invites questions a fuller one would answer.
Do staffing agencies need to give permission?
Often the host organization's permission covers its own premises, but agency-employed workers have a second employer with its own interests, and many boards expect that employer to be informed or to cooperate. Your board decides what documentation it requires, so the draft includes placeholder letters for each organization and leaves the question of necessity to the board.
Where can I find a free GB891 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page holds a full GB891 Unit 3 review board application draft for a workplace safety study, with a risk table, a duty to intervene and unsigned letters of cooperation.
Why include a duty-to-intervene section in a safety study?
Observers may see someone about to be hurt. Stating that observers stop and act immediately, and that safety takes precedence over data, tells the board how this foreseeable situation will be handled.