Research Methods - Exam 1

Method of Tenacity

acquiring knowledge in which information is accepted as true since it has always been believed to be true; superstitions tend to fall under this category. accepted due to repetition and belief and lacks methods of validity and correction

Method of Intuition

acquiring knowledge in which information is accepted on the basis of a “gut feeling”

Method of Authority

acquiring knowledge in which a person relies on information from an expert on a subject or someone above them

Subcategory - Method of Faith

Rationalism (Rational Method)

acquiring knowledge that involves seeking answers by the use of logical reasoning; validity v.s. (un)soundness; people are typically not good at this

Premise Statements

use logical reasoning to describe facts/assumptions

Empiricism

use of direct observations and personal experiences to obtain knowledge

Research

systematic investigation including research development, testing, and evaluation. Designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge

Basic Research

expands fundamental knowledge; aids understanding of process, mechanics, and theories

Applied Research

addresses practical/real-world problems in a scientific setting

Research Producer

designs, conducts, analyze, and publishes scientific investigations, formulates testable hypotheses, collect and manage data, apply statistics, analyze and write in APA format

Research Consumer

reads, critically evaluates, and applies scientific findings; distinguishes science from pseudoscience, assess methodology, recognizes flaws inference, evaluate evidence

Inductive Reasoning

the use of a relatively small set of specific observations as the basis for forming a general statement about a larger set of possible observations (increase)

Deductive Reasoning

the use of a general statement as the basis for reaching a conclusion about specific examples (decrease)

Quantitative Research

based on measuring variables for individual participants or subjects to obtain scores that are submitted to statistical analyses for summary or interpretation

Qualitative Research

based in observations that are summarized and interpreted in a narrative report

Research Process

Find research ideas → form a hypothesis → determine how you will define and measure your variables → identify the participants for the study, decide selection process, and plan for ethical treatment → select a research strategy → select a research design → conduct study → evaluate data → report results → refine/reformulate research ideas

Perceptional Bias

optical illusions; fooled once but you adapt when it occurs again

Cognitive Bias

thinking tendencies which restricts ability to think which includes availability heuristic, confirmation bias, and bias blind spot. All of these biases aid efficiency

Availability Heuristic

a mental shortcut where if you think something first that it is more probable

Bias Blind Spot

“I’m right since my point is backed by ‘more facts’.”

Why Science?

sensory systems have limits and humans interpret, infer, and take mental shortcuts. standardized measurement tools, operational definitions (makes it unambiguous), and blind observations

Characteristics of Science

objective, empirical, logical, and public

Steps of Science

observe, hypothesis/predict (predict is more research specific), evaluate, and support/refute/refine

Testable Hypothesis

observation creates a hypothesis; all of the variables, events, and individuals are real and can be defined and observed

Prediction

make a prediction about observation; specific results will happen because of this situation

Data Collection

research participants, systematic (structured), careful research design, control environment, objective measurements, respect for participants, informed consent, benefice (benefits)

Instruments

validity, reliability, and MISS (Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences)

Validity

measuring what is supposed to be measured

Reliability

consistency of measurement

Common Research Topics

personal interests and curiosities, casual observation, reports of other’s observations, practical problems/questions, behavior theories, and models

T/F: Researchers often give you future research suggestions in their own publications

true

Scholarly Literature

identify facts, academic journals, and peer reviewed articles

Data Analysis

statistical tests, statistical significance, and practical significance

Data Interaction

why is there a difference, why does this increase/decrease

Scholarly Reasoning

inductive - generalize from small set of concepts to all examples
deductive - predict small set of examples and generalize to larger set

Sharing Findings

publications, journals, conferences, presentations, and posters

Scholarly Sources

library database (start here), author website (secondary source citation), Google scholar, reference mining

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

• logical

• testable

• refutable

• positive

Primary Source

a firsthand report of observations or research results written by the individual(s) who actually conducted the research and made the observations; include empirical journal articles, these and dissertations, and conference presentations of research results

Secondary Source

a description or summary of previous work, often conducted by another person, usually written by someone who did not participate in the research or observations discussed; include books/textbooks, review articles or meta-analyses, the intro section of research reports (previous research presented as foundation for the current study), and newspaper and magazine articles that report on previous research. Always incomplete and may have bias

What is the gold star for quality articles?

peer-reviewed journal articles and books

Meta-Analysis

a review and statistical analysis of past research in a specific area that is intended to determine the consistency and robustness of the research results

Two Basic Literature Search Goals:

1. 1) to gain a general familiarity with the current research in your specific area of interest

2. 2) to find a small set of research studies that will serve the basis for your own research idea

Literature Search

the process of gaining general familiarity with the current research subject area and finding a small set of journal articles that serve as the basis for research idea and provide the justification for new research

Subject Words

terms used to identify and describe the variables in a study. Subject words are used to direct a search in a database

Database

a computerized cross-referencing tool that focuses on an individual topic area; used for searching the literature for articles relevant to a topic

psycINFO
psycARTICLES
PubMed
Google Scholar

Abstract

a summary of a research study, usually totaling no more than 150-250 words

Weeding Articles

• use the title of the article

• use the abstract

• find full-text version of the article then skim primarily the intro and discussion section

• if it appears relevant, read the article carefully

• use references from the article to expand your literature search

Ending a Literature Search

when you feel comfortable with your knowledge on the subject and have found a few recent research studies that are relevant to your own interests, then the literature search is complete

Finding Research Ideas

• find suggestions for future research from other research

• combine or contrast existing results

Components of a Research Article

introduction, method section, results section, discussion section, reference section

Introduction

presents a logical development of the research question including a review of the relevant background literature, a statement of the research question or hypothesis, and a brief description of the methods used to answer the question or test the hypothesis

Method Section

• the section of a research report that describes how the study was conducted, including information about the subjects or participants and the procedures used

Results Section

• the section of a research report that presents a summary of the data and the statistical analysis

Discussion Section

the portion of a research report that restates the hypothesis, summarizes the results, and presents a discussion of the interpretation, implications, and possible applications of the results

Reference Section

the section of a research report that lists complete references for all sources of information cited in the report, organized alphabetically by last name of the author

Introduction Critical Evaluation Questions

• Is the review complete and up to date?

• are relevant or related topics not covered?

• is the hypothesis clearly stated?

• is the hypothesis directly related to the reviewed literature?

• does the predicted outcome logically follow from the hypothesis?

• can other specific predictions be made?

Methods Critical Evaluation Questions

• is the sample size justified?

• are the participants representative of the population being considered?

• if participants were restricted (e.g. men only) and if it was justified?

• would different participants produce different results?

• are there alternative ways to define and measure the variables?

• is the design valid?

• could alternative procedures be used?

Results Critical Evaluation Questions

• were the appropriate statistics used?

• exactly what is significant and what is not?

• are the effects large enough to be meaningful?

Discussion Critical Evaluation Questions

• do the results really support (or refute) the hypothesis?

• are the conclusions justified by the results?

• are alternative conclusions/explanations possible?

• would other variables affect the results?

• do the results have real-world applications?

• is there a reason to suspect that the same results would not occur outside the lab?

• would the same results be expected with different participants or under different circumstances?

References Critical Evaluation Questions

is the list of references current and complete?

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

• logical

• testable

• refutable

  • positive

Ethics

the study of proper action

Research Ethics

the responsibility of a researchers to be honest and respectful to all individuals who may be affect by their research studies or their reports of the studies or their reports of the study's results. Researchers are usually governed by a set of ethical guidelines that assist them to make proper decisions and choose proper actions.

Ethical Principles Dictate:

• what measurement techniques may be used for certain individuals and certain behaviors

• how researchers select individuals to participate in studies and how many participants are in a study

• which research designs may be used with certain populations and behaviors

• how studies may be carried out with individuals

• how data are analyzed

• how results are reported

Two Basic Categories of Ethical Responsibilities:

• responsibility to ensure the welfare and dignity of the individuals, both human and nonhuman, who participate in their research studies

• responsibility to ensure that public reports of their research are accurate and honest

National Research Act

mandates regulations for protection of human participants

Belmont Report’s Three Principles:

• principle of respect for persons (autonomy)

• principle of beneficence

• principle of justice

APA’s 10 Ethical Standards:

• no harm

• privacy and confidentiality

• Institutional Approval

• Competence

• Record Keeping

• Informed Consent to Research

• Dispensing with Informed Consent

• Offering Inducements for Research Participation

• Deception in Research

• Debriefing

Consent Forms

overview, description of procedures, risks and inconveniences, benefits, costs and economic considerations, confidentiality, alternative treatment, voluntary participation, questions and further information, and signature lines

Four primary codes of ethics:

The Nuremberg Code, The Declaration of Helsinki, The Belmont Report, and The Common Rule

The Nuremberg Code

resulted from Nazi physicians and unlawful experimentation in the 1940s. Establishes the requirement of informed consent and voluntary participation. States that any benefits (societal or individual) must outweigh any potential risks, and that subjects (participants) can withdraw at any time with no consequences

The Declaration of Helsinki

1964; only well-trained and qualified individuals should engage in any research with human participants. Physicians must safeguard the health and safety of other patients, no matter the benefits. It notes that some participants/groups may have more risks and need greater protections. States that a research ethics committee (IRB) must review and approve all research plans before it is committed.

The Belmont Report

Respects for persons, beneficence, and justice.

The Common Rule

Addresses additional protection from pregnant women, newborns, fetuses, prisoners, and children.

Human Subject

“a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research: (i) Obtains information or biospecimens through intervention or interaction with the individual, and uses, studies, or analyzes the information or biospecimens; or (ii) Obtains, uses, studies, analyzes, or generates identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens.”

Research (CITI Ethics)

“a systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.”

Belmont Report definition: “an activity designed to test a hypothesis [and] permit conclusions to be drawn”

What isn’t research?

Oral history, journalism, biography, literary criticism, legal research and historical scholarship that focuses on specific individuals about whom the information is collected, as well as certain public health surveillance activities under the direction of a public health authority.

Institutional Review Board (IRB)

IRB functions as a type of advocate to help protect the rights and welfare of human subjects by ensuring equitable subject selection, appropriate informed consent, risk mitigation, and respect for privacy and confidentiality. IRB can also express concerns for the researchers involved

IRB must include 5 members from relevant academic disciplines, at least one member not affiliated with the institution, one member with scientific expertise, and one member who is a “non-scientist”

IRB Review Types

exempt, expedited, and condemned

Exempt Review

involve no more than minimal risk and fit into one or more of the regulatory categories and are “exempt” from Common Rule provisions; studies could included educational research, survey research of non-sensitive topics, public officials/program evaluation, analyzing existing data, and taste testing/food quality/marketing research

IRB will ask these questions:

Are vulnerable subjects involved?
Do you plan to collect or keep identifiers or indirect identifiers in connection with the data?
Will you collect any private or sensitive information or data?
Could collecting or retaining data pose any risk to participants?

Yes, would mean IRB requiring an expedited/convened committee review since there may be more than minimal risk

Expedited Review

typically involve some degree of risk to subjects, but it’s still minimal. This involves a limited committee (the chair, members, and/or regulatory staff).

9 expedited categories (some listed below):

Collection of direct identifiers linked to responses of a more personal or sensitive nature.
Work with potentially vulnerable populations.
Potential for distress to participants beyond what would be normal in everyday life.
Possibility of undue influences (aka faculty who wish to recruit students from their classrooms).
Direct contact interviews, surveys, focus groups used to collect sensitive or personal information.

Convened Review

research would have to pose a significantly higher risk to subjects than those that may occur in daily life and will be a full board review with majority vote.

Could happen if you have research involving:

Minors.
Prisoners or persons under correctional supervision,
Abuse, drug use, or sexuality.
Heightened physical discomfort, risk of injury, or invasion of privacy.
Pregnant women, fetuses, or newborns.
Individuals with decisional impairment.
Certain biomedical and/or experimental procedures.
Use of regulated drug/device, dietary manipulation, or medical/clinical assessment of identifiable patients/volunteers

IRB Document Submission Expectations

An application for IRB review that included the plan for recruiting subjects, conducting the study, managing data, and managing potential risks of harm to subjects, and lists of who will be involved. Recruitment materials, whether its flyers, email/phone scripts, and social media announcements. Informed consent forms or script for verbal consent. ”Instruments” which could be interview/focus group questions, surveys, or any other procedures. Some may ask for direct questions and others may ask for the theme/topic of the questions. Human subjects training certificate for all researchers.

Situations that may need further interactions with IRB:

Needing to modify or amend original study activities or procedures. Needs formal IRB approval before implementing the changes. Report of any unanticipated problems, harms, or adverse events that arise during the study and any complaints from participants/research team. Notify any form of confidentiality breach that occurs.

Snowball Sampling

others can assist in recruiting process and you have no contact information at all, or providing a link on emails and flyers so participants can choose whether or not to contact you/click the link. Keeps it more anonymous.

Social Media Problems When Collecting Participants

you can continue to use discretion by providing links, but there are some considerations here. If someone expects their photos to be private, you cannot use them to identify them or use information from the study. If you must register/apply to join a group, you cannot gather data without disclosing your role as a researcher and obtaining further permission.

Classroom Populations

be efficient, explain clearly that students will not have their grade or class standing impacted by not participating in the study, ask the faculty to leave during the survey distribution, collect few identifiers.

Subject Pools

SONA, IRB approval still needed to use this

General Undue Influences

consider hierarchies or influences when thinking of recruitment. Would you ask a school staff their opinions of the school administration at their work, or an outside location? Would you contact their school or personal email?

Non-Location Surveys

mailed, emailed, online

Oral Consent

may apply for populations who do not trust written documentation (such as undocumented individuals) and needs to be language appropriate. Take note afterwards that the participants understand the study and gave oral consent. If you are conducting video or audio recordings, you should record the verbal consent.

Information Sheets

for minimal risk studies on benign topics that collect no identifiers or too few indirect ones may request to give participants “info sheets” which include standard consent info.

Protecting Confidentiality

Encrypt data transmission and avoid transmitting when possible. You cannot identify, use any videos or photos, direct quotes, or descriptive information of the participant without their consent, even when presenting or publishing.

Privacy

the degree to which a subject has control over sharing personal information

you must have permission to collect data for any situation where an individual has reasonable expectation that no observation or recording will occur

Deception in Research IRB assessment:

Deception is necessary for research goals and data collection. Deception will not increase risk to subjects - whether financial, physical, mental, or social You have incorporated an appropriate debriefing session following the data collection to inform subjects about the nature and purpose of the deception.

Internation Research Additional Stipulations:

you must provide the same or equivalent protections to human subjects in research conducted in other countries. you must know and comply with local laws, regulations, political/socio-economic factors, and cultural contexts for all locations where you wish to conduct research. For higher risk studies, the IRB may request consultation with experts in the particular international setting.

Fraud

the explicit efforts of a researcher to falsify and misrepresent data; unethical

Fraud Safeguards:

• replication

• peer review

• transparency in data collection, management, and analysis

• verification of data through the sharing of data

Plagiarism

presenting someone else’s ideas or words as one’s own; unethical