Re: IRB's Gone Wild?
I am probably past my quota but now I am getting offended. Clearly you took my statement completely out of context and used it add more fuel to a fire which did not need it. Your question is absurd if the entire context of this discussion was in place. Annette Quoting Bill Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Annette Taylor wrote: even in a minimum risk study you are abusing your participants if you are asking them to give up their time and energy on a useless task. -- Does this mean an IRB should not approve a replication of Martin Orne's classic demonstration of experimental demand characteristics where he asked participants to add up columns of numbers and then tear up their work over and over for hours on end? He meant it to be as useless a task as possible, and he wanted to see how long they would do it just because he asked them to do it for an experiment. Was he abusing his participants? see http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050035a.html Bill Scott --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Department of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IRB's Gone Wild?
As a blanket statement without any context, I will say this: for many published instruments there are reliability data available. In my experience when an IRB asks for that kind of information, that is what they are asking for; if there aren't any, then there aren't any, and a brief statement of why that's not a problem should generally be sufficient. I don't see it at all as micromanagement nor as politically motivated. I think a prudent IRB would request that kind of information if it will help them make a decision. We know next to nothing about the proposal which started all of this and the context is very important. We don't know if the person/committee reviewing ths study felt uncomfortable about something within the overall proposal and felt that some tangible bit of information might settle his/her/their minds about the potential risks involved. We don't know if this is a committee request or an individual request. We only know that this is a student with a self-constructed questionnaire about music preferences. We know nothing of how the student presented the study to the reviewers, or about the purpose of the study, or of the content of the items. Basically we have minimal information here and are trying to come to some grand conclusions about how IRBs operate. In addition, the letters IRB tend to raise people's hackles for whatever reasons and immediately you begin to lose objectivity in the discussions. This is a shame because I have never, in 20 years and several different institutions been involved with a 'bad' IRB. So maybe the fault is mine. I lack that negative experience and therefore cannot understand why some people are so negative. Annette ps Patricia, where are you? Quoting Hetzel, Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED]: IRBs should focus on assessing the potential risk for harm to participants and should not address psychometric issues of the study. I believe this for a few reasons. First, an IRB cannot make an educated decision on psychometric issues if they do not have expertise in that particular content area. I may decide to use a measure that doesn't yield very reliable scores, but may be the best measure available. Plus, as the primary investigator for a research study it is my responsibilty to choose the measures. If I choose measures that are poorly constructed or do not produce reliable/valid scores, then the editors reviewing my paper for publication will (hopefully) catch it. Second, if the IRB is going to evaluate score reliability, then at what cut-off point are they going to decide that an instrument poses a risk? Are they going to go by the .70 criteria? Higher? Lower? This is a slipperly slope that is best avoided. Third, technically reliability is a property of scores and is not a property of tests themselves. When tests are developed, they do not have a reliability coefficient stamped upon them by the almighty publisher. Researchers should ALWAYS calculate score reliability and validty with their current samples and not rely on previous estimates from other samples. In fact, many journal editors are now requiring researchers to do this prior to submitting articles for publication. The argument that participants need to be protected from the potential risk of wasting their time completing surveys that do not provide reliable scores is a weak argument. Maybe we should not let students complete paper surveys because they will run the risk of getting paper cuts. But we couldn't have computer surveys because participants may be at risk of developing carpal tunnel syndrome. Maybe we should require researchers to write their surveys backwards so left-handed participants won't run the risk of smearing their answers and getting ink on the hand. Okay, so I know I'm being ridiculous here (it's the day before grades are due!). This whole situation has too much micro-management and I wonder what kind of political factors are playing into their decision. Rod __ Roderick D. Hetzel, Ph.D. Department of Psychology LeTourneau University Post Office Box 7001 2100 South Mobberly Avenue Longview, Texas 75607-7001 Office: Education Center 218 Phone:903-233-3893 Fax: 903-233-3851 Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Department of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IRB's Gone Wild?
I took your words out of context? In what context is the word abusing
meant in the following quote?
even in a minimum risk study you are abusing your participants if
you
are asking them to give up their time and energy on a useless task.
Certainly you do not mean abuse such as that experienced by recent Iraqi
prisoners. It seems to me that IRB speak throws around such terms as
abuse and risk and ethics in such a shoot-from-the-hip manner as to
make them meaningless.
Bill Scott
- Original Message -
From: Annette Taylor, Ph. D.
I am probably past my quota but now I am getting offended. Clearly you
took my
statement completely out of context and used it [to] add more fuel to a
fire which
did not need it. Your question is absurd if the entire context of this
discussion was in place.
Annette
Quoting Bill Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Annette Taylor wrote:
even in a minimum risk study you are abusing your participants if
you
are asking them to give up their time and energy on a useless task.
--
Does this mean an IRB should not approve a replication of Martin Orne's
classic demonstration of experimental demand characteristics where he
asked
participants to add up columns of numbers and then tear up their work over
and over for hours on end? He meant it to be as useless a task as
possible,
and he wanted to see how long they would do it just because he asked them
to
do it for an experiment. Was he abusing his participants?
see http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050035a.html
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IRB's gone wild
I may be too late to contribute anything helpful to this thread (I get the digest version so I'm always a day behind or so).There is obviously a concern about to what extent the IRB should be evaluating the quality of the research, and intelligent people can have different opinions on this. On the practical side, I would suggest that one or two faculty from the department ask to meet with the IRB to discuss the issue in general (not just the specific protocol that was submitted). The IRB members are most likely reasonable people who would appreciate a dialogue about how to best fulfill their responsibilities. So my suggestion (as the IRB administrator at my institution) is to listen to their concerns, explain your concerns, and help them come up with a good policy that fits your institution. David Kreiner Professor of Psychology and Assistant Dean of The Graduate School Central Missouri State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IRB's Gone Wild?
I suspect that the operating assumption boils down to the notion that even in minimal risk research there always some risk. Thus, if there is a possibility that the instrument is flawed, why waste Ss' time and expose them to any degree of risk? Miguel At 09:10 AM 5/6/2004 -0400, you wrote: Our relatively new IRB has sent back a proposal from a colleague. The IRB refuses to evaluate the proposal without the author addressing issues of RELIABILITY and VALIDITY of measures. I find this to be a bit scary. While I feel that the IRB is properly charged with evaluating the risk to participants using a given method, I do not feel that the IRB has any place evaluating the appropriateness of the method beyond the evaluation of risk...especially in cases with minimum risk. My contention is that the reliabilty and validity of measures should be outside the perview of the IRB unless risk levels exceed minimum and a cost/benefit decision must be discussed. Thoughts? Can anyone help me out here? --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Miguel Roig, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology Notre Dame Division of St. John's College St. John's University 300 Howard Avenue Staten Island, New York 10301 Voice: (718) 390-4513 Fax: (718) 390-4347 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm On plagiarism and ethical writing: http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/ ___ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IRB's Gone Wild?
Not that I necessarily agree with this particular IRB, butI think that it *is* a cost-benefit matter. Indeed, this is an issue that I discuss with my Research Methods students when we cover research ethics. The argument would be that if the measures are lacking reliability and validity, then there is nothing that we can gain by using them in the research. And if there is nothing to be gained by doing the research, then even "minimal risk" to the participants (note that it isn't "no risk") cannot be justified. There is a potential cost with absolutely no scientific benefit. Of course, what this ignores is the *educational* benefit that may accrue students conducting research. The counter argument to thatis that the students will gain little educational benefit by conducting research that has no validity. (When getting into thisdiscussion with students--both those in the ResearchMethods class and later when we discuss research ethics in our senior seminar--wefollow it through all of these arguments. Frequently the students leave class very frustrated because at the end of the discussion they "don't know what the right answer is" andare stillwrestling with the issues.At that point I know I've done my job right!) Our IRB rarely questions the particulars of the instruments in the proposals our students send up to them, but we *try* to be pretty careful about what gets sent to them in the first place. Robert T. Herdegen IIIElliott Professor of Psychology and ChairmanDepartment of PsychologyHampden-Sydney CollegeHampden-Sydney, VA 23943434-223-6166[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 9:10 AMTo: Teaching in the Psychological SciencesSubject: IRB's Gone Wild? Our relatively new IRB has sent back a proposal from a colleague. The IRB refuses to evaluate the proposal without the author addressing issues of RELIABILITY and VALIDITY of measures. I find this to be a bit scary. While I feel that the IRB is properly charged with evaluating the risk to participants using a given method, I do not feel that the IRB has any place evaluating the appropriateness of the method beyond the evaluation of risk...especially in cases with minimum risk. My contention is that the reliabilty and validity of measures should be outside the perview of the IRB unless risk levels exceed minimum and a cost/benefit decision must be discussed. Thoughts? Can anyone help me out here? --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IRB's Gone Wild?
I've seen cases where this has happened. I agree that IRBs should not be in the business of evaluating research methods for minimal risk research. These IRBs try to justify this micromanaging by appealing to the risk of wasting the participant's time with a study that is unlikely to provide a meaningful answer to a question. This is a slippery slope. I've also seen cases in which an IRB member wanted to change which variables researcher included because the IRB member thought those variables were more important than the ones the researcher chose to select. My experience has been that this has been less of a problem with university-wide IRBs than with departmental IRBs. What experiences have others had? Claudia Stanny At 09:10 AM 5/6/2004 -0400, you wrote: Our relatively new IRB has sent back a proposal from a colleague. The IRB refuses to evaluate the proposal without the author addressing issues of RELIABILITY and VALIDITY of measures. I find this to be a bit scary. While I feel that the IRB is properly charged with evaluating the risk to participants using a given method, I do not feel that the IRB has any place evaluating the appropriateness of the method beyond the evaluation of risk...especially in cases with minimum risk. My contention is that the reliabilty and validity of measures should be outside the perview of the IRB unless risk levels exceed minimum and a cost/benefit decision must be discussed. Thoughts? Can anyone help me out here? Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D. Associate Professor Web Site: http://uwf.edu/cstanny/ Department of PsychologyPhone: (850) 474 - 3163 University of West Florida FAX:(850) 857 - 6060 Pensacola, FL 32514 - 5751 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IRB's Gone Wild?
As chair of our IRB I have sometimes done the same thing, especially if the measures send up a red flag somehow. If the measures are reliable and valid then this is an extremely easy task. If they are not, then even in a minimum risk study you are abusing your participants if you are asking them to give up their time and energy on a useless task. As a psychologist I find I am more mindful of such issues than my colleagues from other disciplines. Some of them--especially from the 'hard' sciences--seem clueless about tests even having reliability and validity. I don't think the IRB has gone wild at all. It is doing its job. This should be easily accomplished and easily remedied. If that was the only thing problematic with the proposal I would have marked it as 'approved pending modifications then usually within a day of getting the requested information would have gotten back to the researcher and told them it was approved. At least at our school it is not a big hassle. Over the years of doing such things I find most researchers end up grateful for the heads-up on a problem with their studies--it boils down to it's not what you say but how you say it. Annette Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Our relatively new IRB has sent back a proposal from a colleague. The IRB refuses to evaluate the proposal without the author addressing issues of RELIABILITY and VALIDITY of measures. I find this to be a bit scary. While I feel that the IRB is properly charged with evaluating the risk to participants using a given method, I do not feel that the IRB has any place evaluating the appropriateness of the method beyond the evaluation of risk...especially in cases with minimum risk. My contention is that the reliabilty and validity of measures should be outside the perview of the IRB unless risk levels exceed minimum and a cost/benefit decision must be discussed. Thoughts? Can anyone help me out here? --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Department of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IRB's Gone Wild?
Ok. I see your points. Allow me to expand: This project involves a student developed survey on music preference and simple correlations with demographic info. The focus of the IRB is on the reliability and validity of this instrument. I see little risk in asking someone their music preference and little opportunity or utility to address validity and reliability of a a homegorwn and simplistic instrument. Even if arguably appropriate, how can validity and reliability issues be responsibly dealt with in this case? --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IRB's Gone Wild?
Annette Taylor, Ph. D. wrote: As chair of our IRB I have sometimes done the same thing, especially if the measures send up a red flag somehow. If the measures are reliable and valid then this is an extremely easy task. If they are not, then even in a minimum risk study you are abusing your participants if you are asking them to give up their time and energy on a useless task. Who gives up their time and energy? Participants are usually compensated for their time and energy. Participants don't give up time and energy any more than other employees do (and surely, as employees ourselves, we know how much useless work employees are asked to do). It isn't (or, rather, shouldn't be, given the absurd amount of power that IRBs have been given of late) for the IRB to pre-empt of the editorial process by attempting to pass judgment on the quality of research methodology. Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ . --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IRB's Gone Wild?
I have to disagree with Annette (and others) on this one (I almost always agree with Annette :-) ). I was the chair of the IRB where I taught before and now I serve on the college wide IRB. I think this is exactly an example on an IRB gone wild. I think this is an example that contributes to the perception that IRB are overstepping their bounds as the "ethics police" and unduly interfering with research (especially minimally risk research). I know Tricia Keith-Speigel is doing research on this as we speak - perhaps she can chime in. I am aware of the fact that IRBs can chose to set the bar higher than the federal regulations (which certainly this is an instance of). However, I think this is dangerous here for several reasons (in no particular order). -many measures used by researchers (incl. me) do not have reliability and validity data. There would be no way to provide evidence of reliability and validity because it does not exist (beyond "these are the measures that I've used before or that other people use") -often you ask new questions that you simply have to write yourself. -in order to collect data on reliability and validity you often have to ask questions that are "bad" -a very important educational function is for students to write items themselves and do the best they can. They then realize (just like we do) that they are probably not that great. Having the IRB serve as a policing function for such research is not only unrealistic - I do not think that is the job of the IRB. -IRBs are rarely experts in the research "you" do. How can they reasonably make a judgment about the quality of measures? -according to the federal guidelines anonymous, minimal research is EXEMPT from review. Unless the IRB has chosen to set a higher bar than the federal guidelines, most research that is done by students is never reviewed (again, if one follows the regs). Just some thoughts before teaching my last class of the semester (yeah!) Marie Annette Taylor, Ph. D. wrote: As chair of our IRB I have sometimes done the same thing, especially if the measures send up a red flag somehow. If the measures are reliable and valid then this is an extremely easy task. If they are not, then even in a minimum risk study you are abusing your participants if you are asking them to give up their time and energy on a useless task. As a psychologist I find I am more mindful of such issues than my colleagues from other disciplines. Some of them--especially from the 'hard' sciences--seem clueless about tests even having reliability and validity. I don't think the IRB has gone wild at all. It is doing its job. This should be easily accomplished and easily remedied. If that was the only thing problematic with the proposal I would have marked it as 'approved pending modifications" then usually within a day of getting the requested information would have gotten back to the researcher and told them it was approved. At least at our school it is not a big hassle. Over the years of doing such things I find most researchers end up grateful for the heads-up on a problem with their studies--it boils down to "it's not what you say but how you say it". Annette Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Our relatively new IRB has sent back a proposal from a colleague. The IRB refuses to evaluate the proposal without the author addressing issues of RELIABILITY and VALIDITY of measures. I find this to be a bit scary. While I feel that the IRB is properly charged with evaluating the risk to participants using a given method, I do not feel that the IRB has any place evaluating the appropriateness of the method beyond the evaluation of risk...especially in cases with minimum risk. My contention is that the reliabilty and validity of measures should be outside the perview of the IRB unless risk levels exceed minimum and a cost/benefit decision must be discussed. Thoughts? Can anyone help me out here? --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Department of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- * Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology Dickinson College, P.O. Box 1773 Carlisle, PA 17013 Office: (717) 245-1562, Fax: (717) 245-1971 Webpage: www.dickinson.edu/~helwegm * --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IRB's Gone Wild?
Yes, and now I see your point. I think that the student can respond to this readily. First of all, obviously there are no reliabilty/validity 'data'. So all the student has to note is that the instrument has face validity--can go over the items individually if need be to satisfy the IRB and then justify their inclusion, along with the demographics, based on the literature. I'd say this can be done within 30-60 minutes and might make the student re-think through his/her items. If there are no 'sensitive' items I don't foresee that there should be any problems--the student may want to mention that. Pedagogically not a bad idea and would satisfy the cost-benefit aspect of IRB review. Maybe the student's mistake was in not submitting this as an 'exempt' status review and taking the time to make a case for the 'exempt' status At least for most IRBs that would mean only one person--the chair or administrator-- looks to see that it satisfies the requirements of exemption from full and detailed review and can quickly decide to agree, or to ask for expedited. Annette Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Ok. I see your points. Allow me to expand: This project involves a student developed survey on music preference and simple correlations with demographic info. The focus of the IRB is on the reliability and validity of this instrument. I see little risk in asking someone their music preference and little opportunity or utility to address validity and reliability of a a homegorwn and simplistic instrument. Even if arguably appropriate, how can validity and reliability issues be responsibly dealt with in this case? --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Department of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IRB's Gone Wild?
We will have to disagree here completely. It is the job of the IRB to decide on the quality of research if the quality shifts the balance of cost/benefit to cost. Participants do give up theri time and energy and are not often compensated. Most subject pools use a genteel form of coercion that we leave a blind eye to--do this 3 of 5 times per semester or do a much more onerous task, or don't pass the course. Let's be real. Most students do not want to participate in research but most intro psych students have to, or they have to do article reviews or some such nonsense. I don't think IRBs are too powerful at all. You need to sit on an IRB for a couple of years to see what comes before committees to get a real sense of what confounded garbage often makes it way to us. As chair I am often the only one reading the vast majority of studies and I have say I have seen some truly terrible proposals. It has changed my perspective completely. I think unless you have had the experience of this you might not understand the perspective of those who have see truly horribly confounded studies come before them. There is also a real danger to the understanding of science that comes from people participating in bad studies. Annette Quoting Christopher D. Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Annette Taylor, Ph. D. wrote: As chair of our IRB I have sometimes done the same thing, especially if the measures send up a red flag somehow. If the measures are reliable and valid then this is an extremely easy task. If they are not, then even in a minimum risk study you are abusing your participants if you are asking them to give up their time and energy on a useless task. Who gives up their time and energy? Participants are usually compensated for their time and energy. Participants don't give up time and energy any more than other employees do (and surely, as employees ourselves, we know how much useless work employees are asked to do). It isn't (or, rather, shouldn't be, given the absurd amount of power that IRBs have been given of late) for the IRB to pre-empt of the editorial process by attempting to pass judgment on the quality of research methodology. Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ . --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph. D. Department of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IRB's Gone Wild?
Annette Taylor, Ph. D. wrote: We will have to disagree here completely. It is the job of the IRB to decide on the quality of research if the quality shifts the balance of cost/benefit to cost. Participants do give up theri time and energy and are not often compensated. Most subject pools use a genteel form of coercion that we leave a blind eye to--do this 3 of 5 times per semester or do a much more onerous task, or don't pass the course. Let's be real. Most students do not want to participate in research but most intro psych students have to, or they have to do article reviews or some such nonsense. Annette, If one is gong to be real then one should admit that the risk of minimal risk research is probably less than that of going to the class itself. The rhetoric of cost in a not-very-well controlled study is, I'm afraid, the main form of nonsense here.Has ANYONE EVER been injured, e.g., memorizing a list of words and then spitting them back out? There is no cost worthy of the name here at all. There are no ethical considerations that don't serve more to denigrate the term ethics than to protect anyone at risk. It is a power play, pure and simple. Being a participant in research is part of the education itself and is no more coercive than reading assingments and tests. And just for the record (since you assumed otherwise) I have sat on my department's ethics review committee. Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 416-736-5115 ext. 66164 fax: 416-736-5814 http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ . --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IRB's Gone Wild?
On 6 May 2004 at 8:23, Annette Taylor wrote: On Thu, 6 May 2004, jim clark wrote: With respect to the last point, it would be interesting to see if participating in bad studies harms or helps students' understanding of science. Good study idea! I agree, but getting that study through the IRB might be difficult. :) Jeff -- Jeffrey Bartel Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Shippensburg University [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 717.477.1324 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IRB's Gone Wild?
I'm stumped. How do you know if a new measurement is reliable or valid before actually testing it by collecting data from participants? Lenore Frigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you Yahoo!?Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IRB's Gone Wild?
Title: Message I'm stumped. How do you know if a new measurement is reliable or valid before actually testing it by collecting data from participants? Lenore Frigo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or alternatively, how do you knowthat an existing measure is going to produce reliable/valid scores with your particular sample? __ Roderick D. Hetzel, Ph.D. Department of Psychology LeTourneau University Post Office Box 7001 2100 South Mobberly Avenue Longview, Texas 75607-7001 Office:EducationCenter 218 Phone:903-233-3893 Fax: 903-233-3851 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage:http://www.letu.edu/people/rodhetzel --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IRB's Gone Wild?
Annette Taylor wrote: even in a minimum risk study you are abusing your participants if you are asking them to give up their time and energy on a useless task. -- Does this mean an IRB should not approve a replication of Martin Orne's classic demonstration of experimental demand characteristics where he asked participants to add up columns of numbers and then tear up their work over and over for hours on end? He meant it to be as useless a task as possible, and he wanted to see how long they would do it just because he asked them to do it for an experiment. Was he abusing his participants? see http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050035a.html Bill Scott --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
