Fluent Essays

Assessing Validity • Validity: accuracy of measurement • Measurement Validity • Face Validity • Content Validity • Criterion Validity • Construct Validity Face Validity • A measure is face valid if it appears to measure the concept of interest, that is, if it obviously pertains to the meaning of the concept of interest • Weakest form • Example: The question - “how many days per week do you smoke marijuana”- has face validity if used to measure the variable “marijuana use” Content Validity • A measure has content validity if it covers the full range of the concept’s meaning • Example: The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test includes 24 questions which experts have agreed capture the full range of possibilities of direct consequences of substance abuse. Criterion Validity • Criterion validity is achieved when scores obtained on one measure can be accurately compared to those obtained with a more direct or already validated measure of the same phenomenon (the criterion) • Example: A probation officer checks self-reports of drug use with urine tests or blood alcohol concentration. Construct Validity • Social researchers strive for construct validity when no clear criterion exists for validation purposes • Validity can be established by showing that a measure is related to a variety of other measures as specified in a theory or other research studies • Example: Researchers comparing responses on the Addiction Severity Index (ASI) to other indicators of substance abuse, such as employment problems, family problems, and medical problems (McLellan et al., 1985) Reliability • Reliability is achieved when a measure yields consistent scores or observations on different occasions • Consistency and/or stability of a measuring instrument Methods of Assessing Reliability • Test-retest: Measure obtains same results at two different times • Used to assess the consistency of a measure from one time to another Methods of Assessing Reliability • Inter-item (internal consistency): Concept is measured with multiple items • There are a wide variety of internal consistency measures that can be used • Example: Cronbach’s alpha • Not possible with a singular question to measure a concept Methods of Assessing Reliability • Alternate-forms: Compare slightly different versions of measures Methods of Assessing Reliability • Split-halves: A survey sample is randomly divided in two. These halves of the sample are then administered the two forms of the questions and the scores are compared Methods of Assessing Reliability • Intraobserver: An observer measures the same phenomenon on separate incidents • Interobserver: More than one observer measure the same phenomenon • AKA: Inter-rater Validity and Reliability Ethical Guidelines for Research Chapter 3 CRJS 3010 Ethics in Research: Two Landmark Studies • Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment • 24 undergraduate male students volunteered to participate in a paid experiment at Stanford University • Randomly assigned role of guard or inmate • Mock prison in basement Watch the video (warning: some parts are graphic) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPO6BrFTsWM Ethics in Research: Two Landmark Studies • Stanley Milgram’s experiment on obedience to authority • Examined whether ordinary citizens would be obedient to authority figures’ instructions to inflict pain other others Watch the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOUEC5YXV8U Milgrams Study • Paid volunteers served as “teachers” • Pupils (“confederates”) were fake subjects who were really part of study • Deceived into believing that each time they threw a lever on a shock apparatus, they were administering gradually more painful electric shocks to subjects they could hear, but not see Historical Background Human Experimentation • Nazi experimentation • Twins • Freezing • Malaria • Mustard gas • Sterilization • Poison • U.S. example Testimony of Father Leo Miechalowski https://www.npr.org/2015/06/23/416408655/the-vas-broken-promise-to-thousands-of-vets-exposed-to-mustard-gas https://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-exhibitions/special-focus/doctors-trial/testimony-father-miechalowski Nuremberg War Crime Trials • The international military tribunal held by the victorious Allies after World War II in Nuremberg, Germany, that exposed the horrific medical experiments conducted by Nazi doctors and others in the name of “science” Tuskegee Syphilis Study • Involved the withholding of known effective treatment (penicillin) for syphilis from African- American participants who were infected https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-YMdaEdbcg Tuskegee Syphilis Study • When did the Tuskegee Syphilis Study become unethical? • What should be done for the families of these subjects? • See President Clinton’s apology Watch me http://www.usrf.org/uro-video/Tuskegee_2004/Tuskegee_study.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wju0wD9mK3Y Ethical Principles Belmont Report (1974) • Established three basic ethical principles: • Respect for persons: treating persons as autonomous agents and protecting those with diminished autonomy • Beneficence (do no harm): minimizing possible harms and maximizing benefits • Justice (in research): distributing benefits and risks of research fairly • Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects Institutional Review Board (IRB) • Committee that reviews research proposals to ensure that research is abiding by ethical principles • Required for every institution that seeks federal funding for biomedical or behavioral research on human subjects • Members have diverse backgrounds Check out SU’s IRB mission https://www.seattleu.edu/irb/about/ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services • Complex flowchart used to determine approval for studies with human subjects Ethical Principles 1. Achieving Valid Results 2. Honesty and Openness 3. Protecting Research Participants 4. The Uses of Research 1) Achieving Valid Results • Commitment to achieving valid results is the necessary starting point for ethical research • Research should be approached objectively • Must be objective and “value free” in approaching and reporting subject matter • Be a neutral observer/scientist 2) Honesty and Openness • Researchers should: • Disclose their research methods • Honestly present their findings • Publish results of the research • Acknowledge the source of research funding F, F, and P https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128875897 3) Protecting Research Participants • Avoid harm to research participants • Obtain informed consent • Informed consent must be voluntarily obtained from persons who are competent to consent, fully informed about the research, and comprehend what they have been told (Reynolds, 1979) • Research involving children must secure the child’s assent and legal guardian’s informed consent Harm? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0jYx8nwjFQ&feature=youtu.be 3) Protecting Research Participants • Obtain informed consent • Special protection is given to groups susceptible to coercion • Prisoners • Pregnant women • Mentally disabled persons • Educationally or economically disadvantaged persons 3) Protecting Research Participants • Avoid deception in research, except in limited circumstances • Deception occurs when subjects are misled about research procedures to determine how they would react to the treatment if they were not research subjects • Research subjects should be debriefed • A researcher explains to the subjects what happened in the experiment and responds to their questions 3) Protecting Research Participants • Confidentiality vs. anonymity • Maintain privacy and confidentiality (e.g., locking records and creating special identifying codes) • Standard of confidentiality does not apply when: • Laws allow the subpoena of research records and may require reporting child abuse • A researcher may feel compelled to release information if a health-or life-threatening situation arises • Research is based on observation in public places and information is available in public records 4) The Uses of Research • Researchers must also consider how their research will be used • Social scientists who conduct research on behalf of an organization may face additional difficulties when the organization controls the final report and its publicity • The potential of withholding a beneficial treatment from some subjects is a cause of ethical concern Research Involving Special Populations: Children and Prisoners Research with Children • Informed consent handled differently when participant is under 18 years old • Cannot legally provide their own consent • Active parental consent usually required • Parent or legal guardian signs consent form • Passive parental consent may be allowed by an IRB • Students participate as long as a form is not returned indicating a lack of consent on behalf of the parent Research with Prisoners • Under constraints that could affect their ability to voluntarily consent • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) imposed strict limits on the involvement of prisoners as research subjects • A prisoner means any individual involuntarily confined or detained in a penal institution • Encompasses individuals in hospitals, alcohol and drug treatment facilities under court order, work-release programs and in at-home detention programs Chapter 15 or 16 *Depends on your edition Plagiarism • Presenting as one’s own the ideas or words of another person or persons for academic evaluation without proper acknowledgment (Hard, Conway, & Moran, 2006) • Maintaining professional integrity is the foundation for ethical research practice Plagiarism Steps to Avoid Plagiarism • Steps to avoid plagiarism: • Maintain careful procedures for documenting sources • Review the definition of plagiarism and how it is enforced by your discipline’s professional association • Keep focused on the goal of social research methods: to investigate the social world Seattle U’s Academic Integrity • Academic integrity • Resources for students https://www.seattleu.edu/academic-integrity/resources-for-students/ https://www.seattleu.edu/academic-integrity/resources-for-students/ Part Two: The Psychology of Evil – 25 points For this part of the assignment, you are to watch this 2008 TEDTalk on the Psychology of Evil with Dr. Philip Zimbardo. Please note that minutes 4:54 through 6:25 show graphic images that are violent or sexual in nature. Feel free to skip to the end of those images (roughly 6:40) if you do not feel comfortable with that content. Then address these questions: · What are your thoughts on this TEDTalk (i.e., what did you learn or find interesting)? · Discuss the similarities in the Stanford prison experiment to those in the prison in Abu Ghraib. Be sure you include the unethical issues found in both. · How does Zimbardo’s discussion of “bad apples”, “bad barrel,” and “bad barrel-makers” apply to criminal justice system and its personnel? Explain. · At the end of the talk, Zimbardo speaks about 1) perpetrators of evil, 2) the evil of passive inaction, and 3) heroism. Critically think about how these could be applied to researchers and criminal justice system/personnel. Week 4 Assignment Rubric Week 4 Assignment Rubric Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart Two: The Psychology of Evil Thoughts - 4 points Similarities/unethical issues across the two - 8 points (4 points for similarities and 4 points for unethical issues) Bad apple/barrel/barrel-makers discussion - 5 points Evil/passive inaction/heroism - 8 points (4 for researcher and 4 for CJS) 25 pts Full Marks 0 pts No Marks 25 pts Total Points: 25