









































RESEARCH 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

Expanding a single-institution survey to multiple institutions: 
Lessons learned in research design and deployment 
 
Erin R.B. Eldermire, MLS  
Head, Flower Sprecker University Library  
Cornell University  
Ithaca, NY 
 
Kristine M. Alpi, MLS, AHIP  
University Librarian 
Oregon Health & Sciences University Library  
Portland, OR  
 
Suzanne Fricke, MLS, AHIP  
Animal Health Sciences Librarian  
Washington State University  
Pullman, WA  
 
Andrea C. Kepsel, MLS, AHIP  
Health Sciences Educational Technology Librarian  
Michigan State University  
Lansing, MI  
 
Erin E. Kerby, MSI  
Veterinary Medicine Librarian  
University of Illinois  
Urbana, IL  
 
Hannah F. Norton, MSIS, AHIP  
Chair, Health Science Campus Library  
University of Florida  
Gainesville, FL  
 
Jessica R. Page, MLIS  
Head, Veterinary Medicine Library  
Ohio State University 
Columbus, OH 
 
 
ABSTRACT 
 
Objective: Creating generalizable knowledge across institutions is a step beyond a 
successful local research project. The purpose of this article is to share the process and 
lessons learned from expanding a survey tool developed and piloted at a single 
veterinary college to its deployment at multiple veterinary colleges in the United States 
and Canada.   
 
Problem: Little guidance exists on expanding a survey developed for a single institution 
to distribution to health professions students across multiple institutions.    
 



RESEARCH 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

Methods: In June 2016, the first author of the survey contacted librarians from 
veterinary colleges to explore a possible multi-institution study to investigate student 
behaviors and perceptions around scientific information. Librarians from 29 institutions 
initially expressed interest. Those at 15 institutions participated in initial planning, and 
eight elected to distribute the survey. Of these, seven submitted for IRB review at their 
own institution and one institution facilitated the distribution of the survey under the 
original institution’s IRB exemption.  
 
Findings: The IRB submission process and requirements varied by participating 
institution. Mean time from submission to approval was 10 days (range: 2-31 days). 
Several changes were made to the survey based on the recommendations of 
participating librarians, ranging from simplifying the method of survey distribution to 
modifying specific questions to make them meaningful across institutions. Because 
participating institutions did not have synchronized academic calendars, the survey 
distribution took a staggered approach between institutions based on IRB review and 
varying institutional processes.   
 
Conclusions: Expanding even a simple IRB-exempt survey from one institution to others 
requires careful consideration of local practices, attention to differences in the IRB 
process, and ethical considerations for recruiting students where librarians serve as 
instructors or hold other positions of influence. Attempts to standardize recruitment 
messaging and survey questions for generalizable results required compromise by the 
librarian researchers at participating institutions. 
 
INTRODUCTION 

Educators struggle to know if research conducted at one institution will translate 
to similar results at other institutions with differing curricula and cultures. To develop a 
generalizable understanding of how veterinary students retrieve, evaluate and apply 
information from scientific papers, a librarian researcher solicited interest and feasibility 
of administering a survey, developed and piloted at Cornell University, across multiple 
institutions.   

The purpose of this report is to share the process and lessons learned from 
expanding a survey developed and deployed at a single veterinary college to multiple 
veterinary colleges in the United States and Canada.  Findings from the survey 
research itself were published in Volume 107, issue 4 of the Journal of the Medical 
Library Association [Toews, Oct 2019] [1]. 
 
LITERATURE REVIEW 

Little literature exists to inform conducting a multi-institutional survey to assess 
health professions students’ information behaviors.  A search of PubMed in March 2020 



RESEARCH 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

for articles with “library” in the affiliation field and the publication type of “Multicenter 
Study” yielded few studies involving practicing librarians studying populations at multiple 
institutions. Three of these surveys address the practices of health professionals [2,3] or 
medical photographers [4]. Each of these have only two authors rather than broader 
authorship representing the other participating institutions.  Perhaps one of the best-
known multicenter studies by librarians with authorship from multiple institutions is the 
Marshall et al [5] study of physicians, residents and nurses on the value of library and 
information services in patient care.  We did not find any multicenter studies by 
librarians researching students in the health professions.  

Outside of the librarianship domain, a small number of studies address the 
implementation of multi-institutional research involving medical students as participants 
and discuss the varied landscape of Institutional Review Board (IRB) review processes 
at included institutions.  Mealer et al [6] provide a helpful summary of human subjects 
research and IRBs.  Sarpel et al [7] outline experiences in interfacing with seven IRBs 
for a coordinated research project.  A strategic approach to submitting to institutional 
IRBs is advised [8].  One approach that was successful in Oermann et al’s [9] study 
across 10 institutions was pursuing a deferral agreement, in which IRBs from different 
institutions defer to an external IRB’s decision.   

Whether pursuing novel research or through coordinated survey efforts such as 
the ACRL Project Outcome for Academic Libraries [10] or Ithaka S+R [11], participation 
in multi-institutional human research efforts will require librarians at each institution to 
pursue IRB approval. Regardless of the details, flexibility and communication are 
paramount as the specifics of a multi-institutional research study may introduce novel 
situations to navigate [8,12].  Research timeframes can quickly expand and diverge 
when working across different colleges and curricula [12].   
 
METHODS 

In May 2016, the first author presented initial findings from a survey piloted at 
Cornell University at the Medical Library Association Annual Meeting [13]. This survey 
investigated student behaviors and perceptions about reading scientific information.  
Through this presentation, she solicited interest from potential collaborators to explore a 
multi-institutional study using the same survey.  On June 17, 2016, the first author sent 
a message via two email discussion lists that host veterinary librarians (vetlib-g@vt.edu 
and vetlibs@lists.mlanet.org) to solicit further interest.  

Librarians from 29 institutions, representing veterinary libraries in Austria, 
Australia, Canada, Ireland, the United States, and Zimbabwe, expressed interest in 
participating.  Cornell hosted a WebEx [14] meeting to discuss this project on July 7, 
2016.  During the meeting, librarians at 15 institutions participated in initial planning 
discussions about timing, the role of librarians in the study, changes needed to survey 
questions, IRB requirements, promotional strategies, and the use of Qualtrics [15] 

mailto:vetlib-g@vt.edu
mailto:vetlibs@lists.mlanet.org


RESEARCH 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

software for survey distribution. The recording was distributed via a OneDrive for 
Business [16] file. A message bounced back that recipients might not be able to access 
the files attached, so the recording was resent as a link to a shared Box [17] account.    

After the meeting, librarians at 17 (59%) institutions decided not to administer the 
survey. Reasons included poor timing, staff changes, curriculum changes, lack of 
interest from institutional leaders, and lack of time to devote to such a project.  
Afterwards, four (14%) additional institutions were unable to continue their collaboration 
due to leaves (planned and unplanned) or changes in work prioritization.  Librarians 
representing the institutions that remained were all in the United States or Canada. 

The first author used a consensus-driven approach to make decisions and take 
next steps.  From her initial solicitation message sent to email discussion lists to the 
date of first survey launch, seven email updates to participating individuals were sent 
and 105 days elapsed.  Between each email update there were a number of individual 
or follow-up emails or phone calls. Ultimately, librarians at eight institutions (28% of 
those who initially expressed interest) distributed the survey: librarians at seven 
institutions submitted for IRB approval or exemption at their own institution and one 
facilitated the distribution of the survey under the original institution’s IRB exemption.  
The survey was distributed at participating institutions between September 14 and 
October 26, 2016. 

During the survey design and distribution process, participating librarians logged 
their experience with IRB submission and survey distribution for future reference and 
comparison. This study reviewing and summarizing those experiences was determined 
to be exempt by the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board (MSU Study 
ID STUDY00003868).  After the original research was published, participating librarians 
reviewed their notes and described modifications that needed to be made to the IRB 
and survey process at their own institutions, and questions and challenges that arose 
during the process. The narratives were anonymized and composites were created to 
highlight general themes and challenges. We discussed the possibility of talking with 
non-participants about their reasons for non-participation, but decided not to pursue this 
line of investigation due to time constraints.  
 
FINDINGS 

The multi-institutional survey, like the pilot survey, included a 30 short-answer or 
Likert-type response structure, and an embedded article for participants to read and 
then respond to additional questions. The survey instrument can be seen in the 
supplemental files of Eldermire et al [1]. Adapting the survey to be distributed to 
students across multiple institutions required an iterative process with participation from 
each institution’s librarian.  The adaptations, described below, impacted the survey 
implementation and research outcomes, and likely contributed to a lower participation 
rate than the pilot survey.   



RESEARCH 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

Minor changes to the survey content were made to clarify language to 
participants in multiple contexts. Examples included adding a drop-down menu for 
participants to indicate which school they were attending, and contact information of 
local institutional leads for questions or concerns about the survey.   

Other changes were more significant.  Unlike the pilot survey, no incentives for 
participation were given for the multi-institutional study. Librarian researchers felt that 
offering incentives would lead to unneeded logistical complexities as well as funding 
source challenges. In addition, the embedded article included in the survey was 
changed to an open-access article so that copyright restrictions or authentication 
requirements did not add complexity. Although both studies focused on metacognition, 
the pilot survey used an article on the impact of teaching metacognitive learning 
strategies on academic performance [18], while the multi-institutional survey article 
focused on the impact of deliberate practice on the development of clinical skills [19].  
The different embedded articles limited comparison between the pilot and multi-
institutional surveys.  Thus, we did not compare the embedded article analysis between 
the pilot and multi-institutional surveys.   

Approval or exemption and project information required by institutional IRBs 
varied between participating institutions.  Three IRBs approved or exempted a 
customized version of the Cornell University protocol with minor changes.  Three others 
required the local researcher to include additional information, such as timelines for how 
students would receive the survey invitation, details on data storage, and when and how 
students would be reminded about the opportunity to participate in the survey.  One IRB 
required a copy of Cornell’s IRB exemption and assurance that IP addresses would not 
be collected for surveys answered via an anonymous link to move forward in their 
approval/exemption process. Partnering institutions in multi-state programs, of which 
there was one, relied on exemption by the primary program institution. The mean time 
from submission to approval or exemption was 10 days with a range of 2 to 31 days.   

IRB processes also impacted the distribution method used.  The initial plan was 
to administer the survey using the Qualtrics mailer from the first author’s account, with 
the ability to send targeted reminders to non-responders.  However, we determined that 
this was not possible without providing student emails to the primary administering 
institution, which did not meet the confidentiality needs at some institutions  Whereas 
the original survey design broke the survey into two parts, allowing participants to leave 
the survey and return to it later, the fact that some institutions required distribution of the 
survey with an anonymous link meant that their participants could not easily leave and 
return to the survey.  Therefore, the survey was adapted to encourage participants to 
take it in one session.  

Variance between college administrations also impacted how the survey was 
distributed to participants. Some institutions did not require direct approval for librarians 
to contact students about a research study, and the librarian researcher was able to 



RESEARCH 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

send a survey invitation directly to cohort email lists or through the Qualtrics mailer. 
Other institutions required permission from Deans of the respective veterinary colleges, 
did not allow direct emails to student lists from librarians, or restricted the number of 
times students could receive reminder messages to take the survey.  One 
administration requested that the survey be approved by the American Association of 
Veterinary Medical Colleges (AAVMC), however, when contacted, the AAVMC declined 
to do so stating that it was beyond the capacity of their organization.  Survey fatigue 
was a stated concern for at least one institution. Some institutions allowed only one 
reminder to be sent, others allowed two or more.   

Due to the variety of processing times for administrative and IRB 
approval/exemption, as well as different academic calendars at participating institutions, 
the survey distribution dates at each institution were staggered and did not occur on a 
particular date.  While this worked on a rolling basis, it meant that by the time the survey 
was released at some institutions, students were already in the midst of the semester 
and were less likely to participate in the survey due to course load, time restraints, and 
other similar reasons.   

We collected data for most of the institutions in the Cornell University instance of 
Qualtrics. For these, the first author distributed institution-specific results to the coauthor 
at each institution.  Data collected by other institutions in their own instance of Qualtrics 
were shared with the first author to be aggregated with the group data in the analysis 
phase.    
 
DISCUSSION 

Conducting this multi-institutional research project took collaboration and 
patience while the authors iteratively adapted a survey from one institution, sought 
institutional assurances, and administered it in heterogeneous contexts.  Throughout 
this process we learned lessons we believe will help those considering conducting a 
multi-institutional study using a survey instrument. 

First, we advise careful consideration of survey content and platform 
functionality.  When adapting a survey that was created for one institution to be used at 
multiple institutions, intensive communication between researchers and survey 
instrument testing may be necessary.  Adapting the survey required each researcher to 
iteratively evaluate the survey with their institutional environment in mind, suggest 
changes that could be accommodated by all participating institutions, and field test and 
reassess the updated instrument until all were comfortable with the ultimate product.    

Second, as research involving human subjects, IRB policies and expectations 
varied between institutions. Variations can occur in the time elapsed from submission to 
approval or exemption, as well as in the materials or information required for review.  
The first author’s expectation that materials from one IRB exemption could be applied to 
other institutions’ IRB processes with minor edits proved not to be the case, as several 



RESEARCH 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

other IRBs required much more detailed information.  Furthermore, IRB and equivalent 
review boards in other countries may have varying protections for human subjects or 
processes for seeking approval or exemption [20]. One size does not fit all.  If we were 
to implement this project again, we would expect variation in IRB processes at each 
institution. Each IRB is composed of individuals who are operating in a unique 
institutional environment, so variation and change are to be expected. Additionally, IRB 
processes have changed since we sought approval for our multi-institutional study.  If 
we were to embark on a similar multi-institutional study at the same institutions now, we 
would start by examining the IRB process.  Since the implementation of this study, the 
IRB landscape has changed significantly, including the requirement of a single IRB for 
multi-institutional studies [21]. As this policy trickles down, organizations have adapted.  
For example, the National Institutes of Health adapted a single IRB policy for multi-site 
research starting in 2018 [22]. We may also consider a deferral agreement, as 
suggested by the literature, for a more strategic approach.  

Third, we found that administrative considerations and expectations varied 
between institutions. Similar to other institutional variations encountered in this process, 
administrators such as deans, department heads, and other leaders had differing 
expectations on how students could learn more about the survey, survey dissemination, 
and security of participant information.  The outcome of such variation translated to 
differences in how the survey was distributed at each institution, introducing additional 
variability to the participation and outcomes across institutions.  Attempts to standardize 
recruitment messaging and survey questions for generalizable results required 
compromise by the researchers at participating institutions. Related, participating 
librarians varied in faculty status; however, that status was not reported by any 
participating librarian as influencing the priority that survey distribution received at each 
institution.   

Fourth, managing a multi-institutional project required additional layers of 
adaptability beyond the challenges of project management at a single institution.  
Typical project management tasks, such as clear and persistent communication from 
the leader–both with the group and with individuals–and final decision making to move 
the group forward were essential.  Project management across multiple institutions 
required additional accommodations, such as scheduling discussions across time 
zones, establishing an online file-sharing platform that all researchers could access and 
contribute to, and in our specific case, integrating an open access article into the survey 
to be distributed across institutions rather than negotiating copyright restrictions or 
institutional links to full-text that would require authentication by participants.  Had 
participants from additional time zones or countries participated, the group may have 
needed to exercise more flexibility in meeting arrangements, file sharing tools, or other 
details that we did not encounter in conducting this study.   



RESEARCH 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

An additional participant protection issue to be addressed would be to consider a 
system that can be trusted to safely store survey results for a multi-institutional survey. 
Some institutions specified that they did not want survey responses to be stored at 
Cornell University.  Storing survey data in the cloud with restricted access by certain 
individuals may be a viable option, but the online survey tools used may introduce other 
data storage considerations.  For example, each of three popular survey tools—
Qualtrics, Survey Monkey, and Google Forms—have different access, storage and 
company policy environments.  We suggest careful consideration of the survey tool and 
implications for data access and storage.  Further, the language of our consent process 
did not permit the data to be made publicly available—this is something we recommend 
considering in future studies. 

At the time of our survey, there were significant concerns about survey fatigue 
and stress among students frequently surveyed for assessment of teaching, 
assessment of learning, and research. Attitudes and processes surrounding educational 
research with veterinary students have likely evolved since we pursued this research in 
2016. For example, institutions that did not have or were in the process of developing a 
survey review process for any surveys to be disseminated to the students in 2016 may 
have set up a formal process, such as a committee established at The Ohio State 
University for conducting surveys [23].  In the case of one participating institution, there 
was a plan in 2016 to set up a formal process, but since few requests came in, as of 
March 2020 the process remains to submit surveys for review and approval by the 
Associate Dean and Director of Academic Affairs. In planning for another survey, we 
would attempt to clear review processes well enough in advance so that surveys could 
be distributed on the same timeline at all institutions, limiting differences in response 
rates due to timing. 

In conclusion, expanding even a simple IRB-exempt survey from one institution 
to others requires careful consideration of local practices, attention to differences in the 
IRB process, and ethical considerations for recruiting students where librarians serve as 
instructors or hold other positions of influence.  Administering a survey to participants 
across multiple institutions will require ample time, cooperation, and flexibility amongst 
the researchers involved.  The survey timeframe, delivery method, communication with 
participants and survey content were all impacted by the process required to deliver the 
survey to a multi-institutional context.  Even though these confounders were a factor in 
our research, we see great value in conducting studies across institutional boundaries 
to broaden understanding and conclusions beyond the unique environment of one 
institution.   
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
We thank the anonymous peer reviewers for offering suggestions that strengthened this 
manuscript.   



RESEARCH 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

 
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS 
Authors include Erin R. B. Eldermire, Kristine M. Alpi, Suzanne Fricke, Andrea C. 
Kepsel, Erin E. Kerby, Hannah F. Norton and Jessica R. Page.   
 
All authors secured IRB exemption/permission from their respective institutions to 
administer the survey referenced in this manuscript, administered the survey, and 
contributed substantially to writing the manuscript.  In addition: 

• Erin Eldermire led the effort 
• Kris Alpi made substantial revisions to the manuscript 
• Suzanne Fricke made significant suggestions for the inclusion of concepts to the 

manuscript 
• Andrea Kepsel sought IRB exemption for this study 

 
REFERENCES 
1. Eldermire ERB, Fricke S, Alpi KM, Davies E, Kepsel AC, Norton H. Information 
Seeking and Evaluation: a multiinstitutional survey of veterinary students. J Med Lib 
Assoc. 2019 May; 107(4):515-526. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.674  
2. Ajuwon GA, Olorunsaye JO. Knowledge, access and usage pattern of HINARI by 
researchers and clinicians in tertiary health institutions in south-west Nigeria. Afr J Med 
Med Sci. 2013 Mar;42(1):97–106.  
3. Cheng GY, Lam LM. Information-seeking behavior of health professionals in Hong 
Kong: a survey of thirty-seven hospitals. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1996 Jan;84(1):32–40.  
4. Addison FJ, Kehoe MA. An assessment of risk associated with the photography of 
microbiological materials. J Audiov Media Med. 2004 Sep;27(3):102–6. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01405110400007726  
5. Marshall JG, Sollenberger J, Easterby-Gannett S, Morgan LK, Klem ML, Cavanaugh 
SK, Oliver KB, Thompson CA, Romanosky N, Hunter S. The value of library and 
information services in patient care: results of a multisite study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 
Jan;101(1):38–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.1.007   
6. Mealer M, Flynn L, Ironside P, Spurlock D. Accelerating multisite research in nursing 
education: navigating institutional review board regulatory issues. J Nurs Educ. 2017 
Feb 1;56(2):65–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20170123-02   
7. Sarpel U, Hopkins M, More F, Yavner S, Pusic M, Nick M, Song H, Ellaway R, Kalet 
A. Medical students as human subjects in educational research - the importance of 
responder bias. Med Educ Online. 2013 Jan1;18(1):19524. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v18i0.20757   
8. North S, Giddens J. Lessons learned in multisite, nursing education research while 
studying a technology learning innovation. J Nurs Educ. 2013 Sep 13;52(10):567–73. 
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20130313-02   

https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.674
https://doi.org/10.1080/01405110400007726
https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.1.007
https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20170123-02
https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v18i0.20757
https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20130313-02


RESEARCH 
 

 

 

Hypothesis 
Vol. 32 No.1  

Fall/Winter 2020 

9. Oermann MH, Hallmark BF, Haus C, Kardong-Edgren SE, McColgan JK, Rogers N. 
Conducting multisite research studies in nursing education: brief practice of CPR skills 
as an exemplar. J Nurs Educ. 2012 Jan;51(1):23–8. 
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20111130-05   
10. ACRL Project Outcome [Internet]. [cited 2020 Mar 30]. Available from: 
https://acrl.projectoutcome.org/ 
11. Ithaka S+R [Internet]. [cited 2020 Mar 30]. Available from: https://sr.ithaka.org/ 
12. Foronda C, Alhusen J. Lessons learned from an international, multisite simulation 
research study. Nurse Educ. 2016 Aug;41(4):199–203. DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1097/nne.0000000000000242   
13. Eldermire, E. and Davies, E.  (2016, May). Reading behavior of veterinary students: 
how big (or small) is their picture?  Medical Library Association Conference. Toronto, 
Canada.   
14. Webex [Internet]. [cited 2020 Mar 30]. Available from: 
https://www.webex.com/video-conferencing  
15. Qualtrics [Internet]. [cited 2020 Mar 30]. Available from: https://www.qualtrics.com/  
16. Microsoft OneDrive [Internet]. [cited 2020 Mar 30]. Available from: 
https://products.office.com/en-us/onedrive/onedrive-for-business  
17. Box [Internet]. [cited 2020 Mar 30]. Available from: https://www.box.com/home  
18. Cook E, Kennedy E, McGuire SY. Effect of Teaching Metacognitive Learning 
Strategies on Performance in General Chemistry Courses. J Chem Educ. 2013 Aug 
13;90(8):961–7.  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300686h   
19. Duvivier RJ, van Dalen J, Muijtjens AM, Moulaert VR, van der Vleuten CP, 
Scherpbier AJ.  The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of clinical skills. BMC 
Med Educ. 2011 Dec 6;11:101.  DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199366149.003.0005   
20. Millum J. Canada’s new ethical guidelines for research with humans: a critique and 
comparison with the United States. Can Med Assoc J. 2012 Apr 3;184(6):657–61. 
DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.111217   
21. Hodge JG, Gostin LO. Revamping the US Federal Common Rule: Modernizing 
Human Participant Research Regulations. J Am Med Assoc. 2017 Apr 
18;317(15):1521–2.  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.1633   
22. Single IRB policy for multi-site research | grants.nih.gov [Internet]. [cited 2020 Jan 
29]. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/single-irb-policy-multi-
site-research.htm   
23. Conducting Surveys [Internet]. Office of Academic Affairs, The Ohio State 
University. 2017 [cited 2020 Mar 30]. Available from: https://oaa.osu.edu/conducting-
surveys  

https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20111130-05
https://acrl.projectoutcome.org/
https://sr.ithaka.org/
https://doi.org/10.1097/nne.0000000000000242
https://www.webex.com/video-conferencing
https://www.qualtrics.com/
https://products.office.com/en-us/onedrive/onedrive-for-business
https://www.box.com/home
https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300686h
https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199366149.003.0005
https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.111217
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.1633
https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/single-irb-policy-multi-site-research.htm
https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/single-irb-policy-multi-site-research.htm
https://oaa.osu.edu/conducting-surveys
https://oaa.osu.edu/conducting-surveys

