Due consideration was given to several key ethical guidelines during the development and implementation of the current study, including those published by the British Psychological Society (BPS, 2009; DECP, 2002); the Association of Educational Psychologists (AEP, 2011); the Health & Care Professions Council (HCPC, 2008) and the University of Nottingham (Nottingham, 2013). Full ethical approval for the current research was obtained from the University of Nottingham ethics committee in June 2013 following careful consideration of the consent procedures required (Appendix 5). Key ethical considerations within the current study will now be discussed.
Obtaining informed parental and student consent for intervention participation was imperative (Standard 1.3; BPS, 2009; 12, Standard 6.2, AEP, 2011; 2, Standard 2.1; DECP, 2002; 5). Following liaison with the ethics committee, ethical approval was granted for the use of opt-out consent for the screening process, on the proviso that participants were provided with a clear indication of the extent of opt-out consent and importantly, what they were consenting to, should they not opt-out (Appendix 6). Opt-out consent forms were to be returned if parents and students did not agree to participate in the screen and share the student’s responses with the researcher. Students and parents were briefed on the nature of the intervention and the associated research prior to participation in the screening process (and subsequent intervention) through the use of consent letters and supporting documentation (appendices 6-10) and through the provision of parent and student information evenings, delivered by the researcher and session leaders. The intention was to act in the best interests of all parties involved in the study (HCPC, 2008; 8) and to ensure that students and their parents had understood the nature of the research prior to providing signed consent. Opt- in consent was sought for participation in the intervention phase. Prior to providing opt-in consent, parents and students were informed that opt-in consent indicated:
a) Agreement for student participation in this study, which may entail; b) Agreement to completion of time 2 questionnaires, and;
130 c) Agreement for the researcher to access additional information about the child (i.e. age, ethnicity, religious status) in order to describe the demographics within each condition.
These briefings were used to outline the standards of confidentiality and anonymity applicable to both participant data obtained from the measures and to students’ contributions within the sessions (Standard 2.3; DECP, 2002; 8, Standard 5, AEP; 2011; 2, Standard 1.2; BPS, 2009; 10). All data was anonymised and filed securely and parents, students and school staff were informed of those parties who may access the data, once obtained (i.e. the researcher and their research supervisor).
Whilst confidentiality principles are of high importance within research, the researcher was aware of the possible need to breach confidentiality where concerns are raised about an individual’s safety (Standard 1.2(vi) (a), BPS; 2009; 11). All parties were informed of the limits to confidentiality prior to providing informed consent for intervention participation; students were also reminded of the limits of confidentiality prior to each session. In the event of a disclosure, school and LA safeguarding processes were to be followed.
All parents and students were notified of their ability to withdraw from participation at any point in the study (Standards 3.3(vii), 1.4(ii) and (iii); BPS, 2009). Participants were informed that upon withdrawal, their data would be removed from all analysis. Participants were also reminded of their right to withdraw at any point prior to each intervention session.
Equality of opportunity to access the intervention was also considered. The circulation of a screening measure to all year 8 students who had agreed to complete the measure and the use of standardised criteria for the identification of possible anxiety allowed for equal access to the intervention. The waiting-list comparison design was utilised to ensure that participants’ entitlement to intervention participation was fulfilled, as it would have been unethical to allocate students to a traditional control-group and deprive them from an intervention which they may have benefitted from. All parents and students were informed of the nature of the wait-list design and the potential
131 for students to be allocated to the intervention or wait-list condition, prior to them providing informed consent for intervention participation.
The importance of minimising the risk for additional harm (psychological or otherwise) was also considered (BPS, 2010; 13). In particular parents and students were provided with the opportunity to raise any queries that they may have prior to intervention participation, via the parent and student briefing meetings. The researchers’ contact details were distributed to all parties to provide additional means for stakeholders to raise their concerns or questions. Parents and students were also reassured of the ‘typical’ level of support students would receive, regardless of wait-list or intervention condition allocation. That is, parents and students were notified that if a student accessed any school-based intervention support prior to the research beginning, then this would continue throughout the research project. Parents and students were also reminded of the school’s usual SEN support procedures should any additional needs arise during the course of the intervention.
As the researcher was also the link TEP for the school, it was also necessary to provide clarity of the author’s role within the context of the research (DECP, 2002; 13) prior to the study commencing. Parents, staff and students were informed that participation in the study and intervention did not constitute EPS casework.
All stakeholders will also be provided with written research summaries at the end of the research. Given the nomothetic nature of the data obtained, these summaries will outline overall group performance as opposed to individualised pupil progress; a concept indicated to parents during the parents’ evening briefing. Research summaries will also provide parents with an overview of the contents of each session and strategies introduced. Participants, staff and parents will be given the opportunity to contact the researcher to discuss the study’s findings further (Standard 4.3.2; DECP, 2002; 17, Standard 3.4.; BPS, 2009; 20).
132