Exam 1 Flashcards
1
Q
Two components of a TRUE experiment?
A
random assignments of participants & manipulation of factors
2
Q
independent variable
A
manipulated
3
Q
dependent variable
A
measured
4
Q
alternate hypothesis
A
“there will be a difference”
5
Q
null hypothesis
A
“there will be no difference”
6
Q
Why is knowledge of research important to clinicians?
A
judge whether claims are reasonable; understand the limitations and possibilities of research and the decisions
7
Q
scientific method
A
problem
question
procedures (the study)
collect/analyze data
draw conclusions
8
Q
who conducts research?
A
researcher
clinician-investigator
collaborative research
9
Q
EBP
A
bringing together clinical research and clinical knowledge to provide the most appropriate, efficient, and effective patient services
10
Q
3 aspects of EBP
A
research
clinical expertise
client values
11
Q
rigorous evaluation of previous studies; done in attempt to answer a research question
A
systematic review
12
Q
allows for an estimate of effectiveness of intervention
A
meta-analysis
13
Q
collection of data
A
empirical
14
Q
use of existing information
A
nonempirical
15
Q
literature review, systematic review of previous research
A
nonempirical
16
Q
2 types of empirical research
A
qualitative and quantitative
17
Q
qualitative empirical research
A
understand human behavior/person’s perspective
data collection: observation/interview
data analysis: themes/descriptions
18
Q
quantitative empirical research
A
finding facts/data
data collection: measurements
data analysis: numerical comparisons, statistical analyses
19
Q
more “verbal”
A
qualitative empirical data
20
Q
more “numerical”
A
quantitative empirical data
21
Q
2 types of empirical, quantitative experimental research
A
true and quasi-
22
Q
experimental research
A
experimenter “manipulates” one or more factors
23
Q
quasi- experimental
A
manipulation of factors and NO random assignment
24
Q
which provides stronger evidence: true or quasi-
A
true experimental
25
non-experimental research
researcher investigates existing conditions
26
no manipulation
non-experimental
27
directed toward obtaining knowledge
basic research
28
directed toward solving some immediate problem
applied research
29
amount of TX
independent variable
30
progress due to Tx
dependent variable
31
research ethics goal
protect subjects/participants
32
respect of persons
respect a person's ability to make an informed decision
33
beneficence
do no harm; benefit has to outweigh risks
34
justice
equitable; fair procedures and outcomes in the selection of research participants
35
participants should be treated as autonomous agents
respect of persons
36
make their own decisions/choices
respect of persons
37
information, comprehension, voluntary
respect of persons
38
human subjects should not be harmed
beneficence
39
benefits should be maximized; harms should be minimized
beneficence
40
equitable decisions on who will participate in the study
justice
41
benefits and risks must be distributed fairly
justice
42
must be fair procedures and outcomes in the selection of research subjects
justice
43
federal law protects certain populations
pregnant women & fetuses
children
prisoners
those w/ impaired consent capacity
44
common rule
federal policy for protection of human subjects; DHHS regulations (CFR 45, part 46)
45
requirements of common rule
for compliance by research institutions
for obtaining and documenting informed consent
for IRB membership, Fx, operations, review of research, and record keeping
for vulnerable subjects
46
administrative body established to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects conducted under the institution with which it is affiliated
IRB
47
IRB acronym
Institutional Review Board
48
IRB Assurance
principles or guidelines that govern institutions regarding protecting human subjects taking part in research taking place in the institutions
49
IRB Members
at least 5 members with varying backgrounds
at least one member whose primary concerns are scientific area
at least one member whose primary concerns are non-scientific area
at least one member not affiliated with the institution
50
IRB approval or disapproval
based on whether or not human participants are adequately protected
51
Officials of institution can disapprove a study approved by IRB BUT
NOT vice versa
52
IRB considerations
risk/benefit analysis
informed consent
selection of subjects
privacy and confidentiality
monitoring and observation
additional safeguards
incentives for participation
continuing review
53
risk/benefit analysis
beneficence
54
informed consent
respect of persons
55
selection of subjects
justice
56
OPRR
office of protection from research risks
57
IRB noncompliance
FDA & OPRR (investigators)
IRB
Institution
58
IACUC
institutional animal care & use committee
59
research integrity: conflicts of interest
financial
investigator role
clinician/investigator role
instructor/investigator role
60
research integrity: credit for intellectual effort
discuss roles
contributions
expectations early in the process
61
research integrity: attribution of ideas
appropriately referencing studies
plagiarism vs paraphrase
use of too many direct quotes
62
data management
data quality, ownership, storage/security
treatment fidelity
63
HIPAA
health insurance portability and accountability act
64
starting research process
clear, answerable research question
65
formulating research questions
question should give info about the study & variables
intent of research
66
formulating the research problem
research questions
formal hypothesis
statement of purpose
67
assume that the study will NOT find significant results
Null hypothesis
68
assume that the study WILL find significant results
alternate hypothesis / research hypothesis
69
why use a null hypothesis?
removes bias
70
reject the null hypothesis
accept the alternate
* there is significant result
71
fail to reject the null hypothesis
accept the null
* there is NO significant result
72
directional study
one result to be better or worse than the other
73
nondirectional study
hypothesis states there will be a difference or relationship
74
conditional statement
if-then statement
often if study relates to theory
75
EBP questions
ask a question, look for answers in existing literature
76
PICO form
patient/population/problem
intervention
comparison
outcome
77
strong research question
question should include specific information
validity
reliability
78
types of validity
face
content
criterion
construct
ecological
79
judgment as to whether the variables measure what they are supposed to
face validity
80
involves judgment, but more formal than face validity
content validity
81
comparison to an existing test/measurement
criterion validity
82
two types of criterion validity
concurrent
predictive
83
give participants new test and standard test close in time
concurrent validity
84
give participants new test and standard test later in future
predictive validity
85
criterion validity: concurrent
smaller number, low relationship
>0.75 would be strong relationship
86
validity coefficient is only meaningful if
the "standard" test is valid
87
criterion validity: predictive
can predict outcome (e.g., phonemic awareness = future reading ability?)
88
construct validity
theories have constructs; set of behaviors with meaningful associations within the theory
89
to test construct validity, developers have
looked for patterns on certain test items
90
establishing construct validity, can look for
convergence
divergence
91
convergence
happens if a person performs similarly on test questions or if two different tests have similar content
92
divergence
happens if a person performs differently on test questions that measure different constructs (e.g., motor skills vs cognitive ability)
93
SCAN-3
construct validity
94
APD
content validity
95
TILLS
construct validity
96
TOLD-P:3
theoretical background is that language has a SINGLE FACTOR, a generalized "measure of general spoken ability"
97
CASL
theoretical background is that language has SINGLE FACTOR UP TO 6 YRS OF AGE; after that, has a THREE FACTOR structure (form, content, use)
98
Hoffman et al found:
TOLD-P:3 has TWO significant factors
CASL has ONE single factor
99
does this test apply to the "real world" of the person being tested?
ecological validity
100
reliability: consistent results
interobserver
test-retest reliability
parallel forms reliability
internal consistency reliability
101
different examiners/observers testing the same person; participant test twice
interobserver reliability
102
participants tested two different times
test-retest reliability
103
two different forms of the same construct or assessment; participant takes more than one test (e.g., form A, then (at later date) part B
parallel-form reliability
104
administer test once to participants; split tests into two equivalent forms, get score for each section/half
split-half reliability
105
high reliability is very important if
comparing results of one client/patient
106
reliability may not have to be as high if
comparing groups
