Table 1. Components of the Research Process in the Nonpatient-centered Research and Community-based Participatory Research Approaches.

	Traditional, nonpatient-centered research	Community-based participatory research
Researcher-participant relationship	Individuals are approached by researchers without necessarily addressing community's stated interests. Researcher relationship with thecommunity is minimal and based primarily on a researcher- participant relationship. Participants are considered “human subjects.”	Community approaches researchers or both are engaged over the longer-term due to mutual interests, shared community involvement and/or long-standing research engagements. Researcher relationship with participants and communities is developed over time. Community members have official status on community advisory boards and potentially as co-investigators.
Research idea or question	Research questions stem from a professional imperative to contribute to generalizable scientific knowledge. Researchers generate ideas. Research questions are driven by funding priorities and researchers' academic interests.	Research questions stem from a social justice imperative that emphasizes the need to address health disparities. Research ideas are identified by or in collaboration with the impacted community. Research questions are driven by the community's expressed needs.
Funding	Funding is sought out and secured by the researchers. Funding is designated for the specific research project only.	Communities and researchers may work together to secure research funding. Funding is available for current research, longer-term engagement, and community capacity building.
Oversight	Approving authority is the institutional review board (IRB) at the researchers' institutions. Oversight is meant to protect rights and welfare of “human subjects.”	Approving authorities include an IRB from the researchers' institutions and those protecting the well-being of the community (e.g. tribal IRB, community advisory boards, steering committees). Communities' oversight is meant to protect their values, ethics and interests.
Research Design	Preset design does not change over the course of the project. Although some qualitative research may be conducted, researchers use primarily ‘objective,’ deductive and quantitative methods.	Design may be more flexible to accommodate an iterative research process, especially in early phases. Community input is valued. Researchers use inductive methods and practice reflexivity, acknowledging that subjectivity is inherent to all research.
Intervention design	Researchers design interventions and programming to be tested within research projects. Interventions and programming are designed based on evidence-based practice and the current state-of-the-science.	Communities codesign interventions, often via their participation on community advisory boards, on steering committees, and in consultant roles. Interventions and programming are designed based on researchers', stakeholders', and community input and reflect scientific and clinical standards as well as the community's interests, knowledge and values.
Data collection	Researchers choose measures. Measures are selected based on their psychometric properties (i.e., reliability/validity, specificity/sensitivity) established in prior research studies. Research staff recruit participants and collect data.	The community provides input on the selection of measures and/or co-designs locally specific measures in addition to standard instruments. Community members may choose to assist in recruitment and data collection.
Data analysis	Researchers are solely responsible for data analysis planning, implementation, and interpretation.	Community expertise and perspectives are solicited and valued in planning analyses, analyzing data and/or interpreting findings.
Publication/ Dissemination	Researchers and/or their institutions have sole intellectual property claims on research Research is disseminated primarily to an academic audience. Advancement of researcher/institutional interests is the primary consideration.	Community members are often co-authors/co-owners of research products. Research is disseminated in multiple formats and across various types of venues to be accessible to the community as well as to academic audiences. Community well-being is a priority and may be advanced in various ways (e.g., community-wide adoption of developed interventions, trainings, policy recommendations and actions).
Sustainability	Programming and interventions are only implemented within the research timeframe and are discontinued after the research project has ended. Researchers do not make data and findings available to the community and/or key stakeholders.	Plans for sustaining programming/interventions designed during the research timeframe is built into the research timeline and funding. Data/findings are available to the community for future funding requests, regardless of researcher involvement. Researchers work with community beyond a single funding cycle.

Note. Some researchers have summarized the distinction between traditional research and CBPR approaches (e.g., Horowitz, Robinson, & Seifer, 2009). Prior comparisons, however, were not made from the psychology researcher perspective. Here, we compare CBPR and traditional psychology research processes, whichexposes and challenges some of the fundamental and often implicit assumptions in traditional psychology research. It should be noted, however, that these contrasts are meant to be illustrative and are not absolute, prescriptive, or accurate in all cases.