Research Methods Exam 2

Front 1

3 basic principles of Belmont report

Back 1

Respect for persons, beneficence-maximize benefits, minimize risk, justice-benefits and burdens are distributed equally

Front 2

informed consent

Back 2

statement informing potential research participants of purposes, procedures, risks, benefits of research; participation is voluntary

Front 3

key components of informed consent

Back 3

1) made fully aware of nature and purpose

2) consent is voluntary

3) has legal capacity to give consent

4) obtaining consent lies with researcher

Front 4

purpose of an IRB

Back 4

to protect the rights of research participants, make sure Belmont Report is followed

Front 5

3 categories of IRB review

Back 5

exempt- no review

expediated- minimal risk

full review-risks are more than minimal

Front 6

scientific misconduct due to fabrication or falsification

Back 6

they made up or or changed data numbers to influence the results

Front 7

academic dishonesty due to plagiarism

Back 7

they passed off someone else's work as their own without citing it

Front 8

most crucial element in selecting a sample from a population

Back 8

make sure sample is representative of population

Front 9

probability sampling

Back 9

sampling technique in which the probability of selecting participant is known

Front 10

nonprobability sampling

Back 10

probability of selecting participants in unknown

Front 11

simple random

Back 11

equal chance of being selected; selection of one element does not influence selection chances

adv-bias free

disadv-may not be representative

Front 12

systematic

Back 12

choose every xth element

adv-quick, efficient

disadv-not random

Front 13

stratified random

Back 13

divide into subgroups, then pick from subgroups

adv-representative sample

disadv-not completely random

Front 14

cluster sampling

Back 14

sample is naturally occuring group/cluster

adv-participant demographics are spread out, more practical, cheap

disadv-if small cluster, not equal size

Front 15

convenience

Back 15

get people who are most convenient

adv-easy , quick

disadv- not generalizable

Front 16

purposive sampling

Back 16

select people with traits that are critical to result

adv-qualitative

disadv-not large sample size

Front 17

procedures involved in purposive sampling

Back 17

depends on target population and how generalized you want results to be

Front 18

five factors that influence researcher's decision on sample size

Back 18

preliminary studies, money and time, documenting something rare, variability of population, if looking for sample difference you need a larger sample size

Front 19

p-value

Back 19

relationship between variables is due to real difference and not sampling error

p<.05= reject null, low sampling error

p>.05=fail to reject, high sampling error

Front 20

components required when writing hypothesis

Back 20

complete sentence

identify IV and DV

significance

use association or relationship when talking about correlation

Front 21

alpha level

Back 21

probability level selected that warrants rejection of null hypothesis, usually .05

Front 22

manipulation vs. control

Back 22

manipulation is where you actively change a variable to see its effects

control is where you take out variables for research

Front 23

internal validity

Back 23

how valid the findings are within the study

Front 24

external validity

Back 24

degree to which findings in study can be inferred or generalized

Front 25

threats to internal: History

Back 25

things happening past or present that will affect scores or treatment

Front 26

threats to internal: maturation

Back 26

maturation of participants can affect performance and change results

Front 27

threats to internal: testing

Back 27

act of taking a test can change scores

Front 28

threats to internal: instrumentation

Back 28

affected by type, calibration, adjustment

Front 29

threats to internal: stats regression

Back 29

people who score extreme first time will score closer the mean the second time

Front 30

threats to internal: selection bias

Back 30

researcher is biased in selecting participants

Front 31

threats to internal: experimental mortality

Back 31

loss of participants means sample may not be representative anymore

Front 32

threats to external: expectancy

Back 32

if you expect a certain result, you may be biased toward it

Front 33

threats to external: reactive effects of experimental setting

Back 33

experimental treatment has unique effect on participants that would not be observed in another setting

Front 34

threats to external: multiple treatment interference

Back 34

effect of prior treatment on response to current treatment

Front 35

pre-experimental design

Back 35

no random selection or random assignment, poor control

Front 36

what determines type of review for IRB

Back 36

high vs. low risk, high=full, low=expediated

Front 37

population validity

Back 37

the extent to which the resultscan be generalized from the experimental sample to a defined population

Front 38

ecological validity

Back 38

extent to which the results of an experiment canbe generalized from the set of environmental conditions in the experiment toother environmental conditions

Front 39

true experimental design

Back 39

random sampling and assignment, high level of control

Front 40

quasi-experimental

Back 40

lack either random selection or assignment, moderate level of control

Front 41

using physical manipulation to control variables

Back 41

can control environment and experience

Front 42

using selective manipulation to control variables

Back 42

choose certain participants and matched pairs

Front 43

placebo effect

Back 43

treatment that has no effect, gives participant idea that they are receiving treatment

Front 44

john henry effect

Back 44

control group will try harder if they know they are not supposed to be as good as experimental group

Front 45

experimenter bias

Back 45

the effect experimenter has on results

can affect methodology, treatment, and data collection

Front 46

hawthorne effect

Back 46

participants may perform differently if they know they are in a study or being watched

Front 47

central tendancy error

Back 47

rate participants in middle of scale instead of rating extremes

Front 48

rating affect as source of error

Back 48

human error can affect results, discrepancies in rating, halo effect

Front 49

single-blind study

Back 49

participants don't know purpose of study

Front 50

double-blind study

Back 50

participants not aware of purpose of study or who is in what group

Front 51

administered questionnaire

Back 51

give by researcher, response is manadory and immediate

Front 52

distributed questionnaire

Back 52

don't have to get it back, not direct, may take while

Front 53

reliability and examples

Back 53

consistency of response

can do questionnaire on two different days, use opposite terms

Front 54

validity and example

Back 54

degree to which answers are correct

usually determine by jury; judge content, construction, and use

Front 55

norm referenced

Back 55

rating on best to worst scale, percentile ranks

Front 56

criteron referenced

Back 56

pass or fail, drivers test

Front 57

importance of format elements

Back 57

appearance-professional, typed neat

demographics at end

keep length to one page

more likely to get returned

Front 58

privacy

Back 58

capacity of individuals to control when and under what conditions others will have access to their info

AMT OF CONTROL WE HAVE OVER INFO

Front 59

condfidentiality

Back 59

ability to link info/data collected during study to person's identity

HOW DISCLOSED PERSONAL INFO MAY BE USED

Front 60

longitudinal study

Back 60

follow one group over x number of years

Front 61

cross-sectional study

Back 61

take data from several groups at one time period