How it works: the whole IRB process, start to finish
At Capella the IRB is the fourth gate in a fixed sequence, and the application it reads is a dossier, not a form. Here is what we take off your desk, in what order, and what stays yours.
We handle the entire Capella IRB process end to end: the determination of which review path your project is on, every document in the application file, the submission to Capella's IRB, and every reply to the board until the approval letter arrives. It begins with a free application review, and the fee for everything after it is quoted in writing. The research itself stays yours; the board's decision is always its own.
Where the IRB sits on Capella's route
Capella's sequence runs one way. Human-subjects training comes first, then your school's sign-off on the topic, then the research plan through Scientific Merit Review, and only then the IRB. Data collection opens after the board's approval and not a day before. The order matters for a practical reason: the board reads your application against the plan Scientific Merit Review already stamped, so the board's reference document is written one gate before the board ever sees your file. Capella's current handbook and IRB portal carry the exact forms and names in force this term; the shape of the route has not changed.
The IRB application
The board reads your application against the research plan Scientific Merit Review already approved. Any drift between the two — sample, sites, instruments, recruitment — is the single most common reason a file comes back. The application must also carry consent documents, recruitment materials, site permission letters and your CITI certificates, version-matched to the protocol.
Holds the route until: the file and the approved plan say exactly the same thing.
Select a gate to read what clears it. The tributary in amber is site permission — it joins the route at the IRB gate but takes longest to obtain, which is why we request the letters at the start, not the end.
| Gate | What is examined | What holds the route |
|---|---|---|
| 1 · CITI training | Current human-subjects certification in the modules that match the study, as named in Capella's current handbook or IRB portal. | An expired or wrong-module certificate. The board can fail this row without reading the protocol. |
| 2 · Topic approval | Your school signs off on what the project is, before anyone examines how it will be done. | A topic that quietly changes after approval; the mismatch surfaces two gates later, in front of the board. |
| 3 · Scientific Merit Review | The research plan — design, sample, instruments, analysis. The stamped plan becomes the reference text for everything after it. | A plan that keeps being edited after the stamp. Once approved, stop editing it; amend it formally if it must change. |
| 4 · The IRB | Your application against the stamped plan, plus consent, recruitment, instruments, data security, site permission and CITI, all version-matched. | Any sentence in the file that contradicts the plan or another document in the file. Returned, not rejected — and the return waits out another review pass. |
The three moves, in order
The file, like the route, only works in sequence. Each move is finished before the next begins, and the same three hands carry the file through all of them.
The determination and the plan
Before a word is drafted, a consultant reads your project the way Capella's board will and settles which review path it is on: not human-subjects research, exempt, expedited, or full board. The category is not a label you pick; it is a claim the file must argue and evidence, and a wobbly claim is re-routed to the longer path. From that reading we map every document the file needs, piece by piece, and write it down as a plan you can carry yourself or hand back to us. The same mismatch check the reviewers run, run first.
Every document, built and version-matched
The application form, whose answers must quote the stamped plan rather than paraphrase it. The consent form or forms, written to the reading level of the people who will sign them, every required element present. The recruitment materials. The instruments and interview guides, exactly as you will use them. The data-security plan that names the storage, the access list, the de-identification step and the destruction date. The site permission letters, drafted on the organisation's behalf so that the only thing the signatory has to do is sign. One file that says one thing, everywhere.
Submitted, and every reply answered
We file it. Where Capella's current portal requires the submission to come from your own account, we complete it with you, screen by screen, so the filing is still ours to carry. When the board writes back, so do we: a revision response that answers every point, document by document, with tracked and clean copies; amendments when the study has to change; the continuing-review cycle if the study runs long enough to need one. The process stays on our desk until the approval letter is in your hands.
The free application review is the entry, not the service. Whatever stage you are at — before the plan is stamped, ready to file, or holding a return letter — a consultant reads the file the way the board will and writes back with what it needs. What each package covers is quoted in writing after that reading.
Every document in the file, and who drafts it
An IRB application is never one form. The board reads it as a single document — every piece version-matched to every other — which is why it is built as one. Here is the whole dossier, what the board reads each piece against, and whose hand it comes from.
| Document | What the board reads it against | Who drafts it |
|---|---|---|
| The IRB application form | The stamped research plan, line by line. Numbers, sites, instruments and recruitment must match exactly. | We draft every answer; you confirm it is true. |
| The SMR-approved research plan | It is the reference document. The board reads everything else against it. | Yours, already approved. We check the file against it and flag where an amendment is needed. |
| Consent form(s), and assent where required | Every required element present; the version stamped to the protocol; readable by the people signing it. | We draft and version-stamp them. |
| Recruitment materials | Who is invited, by whom, and with what wording — matched to the plan, free of pressure or implied endorsement. | We draft them. |
| Instruments, surveys, interview guides | Every question you will ask, exactly as you will ask it, named the same way the plan names it. | Yours; we align the names, versions and wording to the plan. |
| The data-security plan | Where identifiers live, who holds the key, when data are de-identified, when everything is destroyed. | We draft it. |
| Site permission letter(s) | Letterhead, an authorised signatory, and the data you will actually touch named in the letter. | We draft the letter for the signatory and follow up until it is signed. |
| CITI certificates | Current, and in the modules Capella's current handbook or IRB portal names for your study. | Yours; we check the dates before anything is filed. |
| Anything else the portal asks for | Investigator information, conflict-of-interest statements, a faculty sign-off — whatever Capella's current portal requires this term. | We prepare it; you sign where a signature must be yours. |
The two truths that do not change
The research stays yours
The project, the data and the findings are yours. We do not conduct the research, recruit your participants, collect your data or author your findings. What we take is everything the board touches: the determination, the file, the submission, the correspondence.
The board's decision is always its own
Capella's IRB decides the review category and the outcome; nobody else does, and nobody can promise it. What we can promise is a file that says one thing everywhere, claims the path it is actually on, carries every document the board will look for, and answers every return point by point. That is what moves a file through in one pass instead of three.
What happens when the board returns a file
Returned, not rejected. The board writes back with points — a number that does not match the plan, a consent version stamped to an earlier protocol, a site letter signed by the wrong person, a data-security answer that is a sentence long. You answer the points, resubmit the revised documents, and the file waits out another review pass before it moves again.
If you come to us with a return letter, the first thing we do is read it line by line against the file, because most returns are file problems rather than research problems and the fix is precise. The revision response we write quotes each point, states what is now true, names the document and version where the change lives, and travels with tracked and clean copies. If a point forces a change to the study itself, the research plan is amended first and the file is brought back into line with it, so the next letter does not open a new mismatch. The FAQ answers the questions a return letter usually raises; the articles go deeper on revision responses, consent and the rest.
What happens after you send the free review
- You tell us where the project stands using the form — before Scientific Merit Review, stamped but not filed, or returned — and say a line about the project.
- A consultant reads it the way the board will and writes back at the email you gave: where it sits on the route, what the file needs, and what would come back.
- If you want the process carried from there, the package is quoted in writing: one fixed fee, nothing billed by the hour. Nothing is filed, and nothing is billed, until you say so.
The review costs nothing and commits you to nothing. Some files come back from it with the honest reading that you can file them yourself; the determination instrument on the home page says the same thing when it is true.
Who this is for
Nursing and health-care professionals in Capella programs whose project has to pass the board: quality-improvement projects, capstones, and doctoral research — single-site and multi-site, with or without identifiers, and at any point on the route. The three consultants on the desk have carried Capella files from the first determination to the approval letter for as long as the practice has taken them; the professionals whose files they carried say so in their own words.