Quiz 2

Units 3 and 4

Respect for Persons

respect for autonomy; preserve this

informed consent

researchers need to be truthful**deception complicates this

Beneficence

minimal risk standard

Justice

fair distribution of risks and benefits

participants eligibility

Institutional Review Board

a group that reviews research involving human subjects to ensure their rights and safety are protected

• Review research protocols and related materials

• Approve, disapprove, or exempt research

• Monitor research and study volunteers

• Ensure risks to subjects are minimized

• Ensure participants have enough information to consent to participate

Ethics Review Process

see RAF https://docs.google.com/document/d/14KdWfdmQus4mvsKfUrKe4-gqktrLc7HS8eULUqTU3os/edit?tab=t.0

Informed Consent

permission granted in the knowledge of the possible consequences, typically that which is given by a patient to a doctor for treatment with full knowledge of the possible risks and benefits.

Debriefing

involves researchers explaining the study's purpose, methods, and any deception used to participants after their involvement, ensuring they are fully informed and not harmed

Anonymity

name and identifying info NEVER LINKED to person/data

Confidentiality

can link identifying info to person but PROMISE TO PROTECT THEIR PRIVACY

Active Deception

actively lie/deceive them directly

intentionally lying or misleading

ex: cover story
need STRONGER JUSTIFICATION for this in the RAF

Passive Deception

Omitting parts of the “whole” truth and other details about study’s purpose and/or hypothesis

Cover Story

a type of active deception that is a false or misleading explanation given to participants to hide the true purpose of the study, often used to avoid influencing their behavior or responses. 

Open Science

promoting open practices

• open data

• open source

• open access

• open methodology

• open peer review

• open education resources

increase in preregistration (exclusions, manipulation, sample size — enhanced reporting; makes it accountable to what you’ve done) of a study design

increase in sharing in underlying data

new word limits

embracing new statistics

• effect sizes, confidence intervals, meta-analysis; avoids problem with NHST

Replication

being able to have results of a study repeat.

• exact replication: scientists attempt to exactly recreate scientific methods used in conditions of an earlier study to determine whether results will come out the same

• conceptual replication: scientists try to confirm previous findings using different set of specific methods that test the same idea/hypothesis; generalizability of findings

Within-subjects design

same participants within each condition combination

smaller N required, but fatigue and order/carryover effects can be present

• mitigate this with: complete counter-balancing or latin squares or randomization of orders

Between Subjects design

randomly assign equal numbers of participants to each condition then compare performance data

• counterbalancing effects already in place

• need larger N to get significant results though

mixed design

factors are usually at least one between and one within

Factorial Design

when you have multiple levels to account for for each variable and want to see interaction effects (minimum is 2×2)

Levels of the IV

conditions of the IV

Main effect

when some IV has an effect on a DV such that there is an apparent difference between two means or more (USE MARGINAL MEANS AKA TAKE AVERAGE OF THE MEANS)

two-way Interaction

influence of one variable varies at levels of another variable

(USE CELLL MEANS AKA TAKE DIFFERENCE OF THE MEANS)

three-way interaction

influence of one variable varies at levels of two variables (USE CELLL MEANS AKA TAKE DIFFERENCE OF THE MEANS and COMPARE ACROSS TABLES)