Exam 1 Flashcards
Two components of a TRUE experiment?
random assignments of participants & manipulation of factors
independent variable
manipulated
dependent variable
measured
alternate hypothesis
“there will be a difference”
null hypothesis
“there will be no difference”
Why is knowledge of research important to clinicians?
judge whether claims are reasonable; understand the limitations and possibilities of research and the decisions
scientific method
problem
question
procedures (the study)
collect/analyze data
draw conclusions
who conducts research?
researcher
clinician-investigator
collaborative research
EBP
bringing together clinical research and clinical knowledge to provide the most appropriate, efficient, and effective patient services
3 aspects of EBP
research
clinical expertise
client values
rigorous evaluation of previous studies; done in attempt to answer a research question
systematic review
allows for an estimate of effectiveness of intervention
meta-analysis
collection of data
empirical
use of existing information
nonempirical
literature review, systematic review of previous research
nonempirical
2 types of empirical research
qualitative and quantitative
qualitative empirical research
understand human behavior/person’s perspective
data collection: observation/interview
data analysis: themes/descriptions
quantitative empirical research
finding facts/data
data collection: measurements
data analysis: numerical comparisons, statistical analyses
more “verbal”
qualitative empirical data
more “numerical”
quantitative empirical data
2 types of empirical, quantitative experimental research
true and quasi-
experimental research
experimenter “manipulates” one or more factors
quasi- experimental
manipulation of factors and NO random assignment
which provides stronger evidence: true or quasi-
true experimental
non-experimental research
researcher investigates existing conditions
no manipulation
non-experimental
directed toward obtaining knowledge
basic research
directed toward solving some immediate problem
applied research
amount of TX
independent variable
progress due to Tx
dependent variable
research ethics goal
protect subjects/participants
respect of persons
respect a person’s ability to make an informed decision
beneficence
do no harm; benefit has to outweigh risks
justice
equitable; fair procedures and outcomes in the selection of research participants
participants should be treated as autonomous agents
respect of persons
make their own decisions/choices
respect of persons
information, comprehension, voluntary
respect of persons
human subjects should not be harmed
beneficence
benefits should be maximized; harms should be minimized
beneficence
equitable decisions on who will participate in the study
justice
benefits and risks must be distributed fairly
justice
must be fair procedures and outcomes in the selection of research subjects
justice
federal law protects certain populations
pregnant women & fetuses
children
prisoners
those w/ impaired consent capacity
common rule
federal policy for protection of human subjects; DHHS regulations (CFR 45, part 46)
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
administrative body established to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects conducted under the institution with which it is affiliated
IRB
IRB acronym
Institutional Review Board
IRB Assurance
principles or guidelines that govern institutions regarding protecting human subjects taking part in research taking place in the institutions
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
IRB approval or disapproval
based on whether or not human participants are adequately protected
Officials of institution can disapprove a study approved by IRB BUT
NOT vice versa
IRB considerations
risk/benefit analysis
informed consent
selection of subjects
privacy and confidentiality
monitoring and observation
additional safeguards
incentives for participation
continuing review
risk/benefit analysis
beneficence
informed consent
respect of persons
selection of subjects
justice
OPRR
office of protection from research risks
IRB noncompliance
FDA & OPRR (investigators)
IRB
Institution
IACUC
institutional animal care & use committee
research integrity: conflicts of interest
financial
investigator role
clinician/investigator role
instructor/investigator role
research integrity: credit for intellectual effort
discuss roles
contributions
expectations early in the process
research integrity: attribution of ideas
appropriately referencing studies
plagiarism vs paraphrase
use of too many direct quotes
data management
data quality, ownership, storage/security
treatment fidelity
HIPAA
health insurance portability and accountability act
starting research process
clear, answerable research question
formulating research questions
question should give info about the study & variables
intent of research
formulating the research problem
research questions
formal hypothesis
statement of purpose
assume that the study will NOT find significant results
Null hypothesis
assume that the study WILL find significant results
alternate hypothesis / research hypothesis
why use a null hypothesis?
removes bias
reject the null hypothesis
accept the alternate
* there is significant result
fail to reject the null hypothesis
accept the null
* there is NO significant result
directional study
one result to be better or worse than the other
nondirectional study
hypothesis states there will be a difference or relationship
conditional statement
if-then statement
often if study relates to theory
EBP questions
ask a question, look for answers in existing literature
PICO form
patient/population/problem
intervention
comparison
outcome
strong research question
question should include specific information
validity
reliability
types of validity
face
content
criterion
construct
ecological
judgment as to whether the variables measure what they are supposed to
face validity
involves judgment, but more formal than face validity
content validity
comparison to an existing test/measurement
criterion validity
two types of criterion validity
concurrent
predictive
give participants new test and standard test close in time
concurrent validity
give participants new test and standard test later in future
predictive validity
criterion validity: concurrent
smaller number, low relationship
>0.75 would be strong relationship
validity coefficient is only meaningful if
the “standard” test is valid
criterion validity: predictive
can predict outcome (e.g., phonemic awareness = future reading ability?)
construct validity
theories have constructs; set of behaviors with meaningful associations within the theory
to test construct validity, developers have
looked for patterns on certain test items
establishing construct validity, can look for
convergence
divergence
convergence
happens if a person performs similarly on test questions or if two different tests have similar content
divergence
happens if a person performs differently on test questions that measure different constructs (e.g., motor skills vs cognitive ability)
SCAN-3
construct validity
APD
content validity
TILLS
construct validity
TOLD-P:3
theoretical background is that language has a SINGLE FACTOR, a generalized “measure of general spoken ability”
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)
Hoffman et al found:
TOLD-P:3 has TWO significant factors
CASL has ONE single factor
does this test apply to the “real world” of the person being tested?
ecological validity
reliability: consistent results
interobserver
test-retest reliability
parallel forms reliability
internal consistency reliability
different examiners/observers testing the same person; participant test twice
interobserver reliability
participants tested two different times
test-retest reliability
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
administer test once to participants; split tests into two equivalent forms, get score for each section/half
split-half reliability
high reliability is very important if
comparing results of one client/patient
reliability may not have to be as high if
comparing groups
