6 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2017
    1. Prescreening can also involve collecting data to identify and eliminate participants.

      It might be important to expand on this idea by describing how it is still important to consider that the experimenter still has a representative random sample for their study after prescreening

    2. It would be unethical, for example, to include as an author someone who had made only minor contributions to the research (e.g., analyzing some of the data) or for a faculty member to make himself or herself the first author on research that was largely conducted by a student.

      This example effectively identifies and communicates what could be a minor contribution to a study as well as an improper behavior regarding the assignment of contribution.

    3. The IRB helps to make sure that the risks of the proposed research are minimized, the benefits outweigh the risks, the research is carried out in a fair manner, and the informed consent procedure is adequate.

      Clear and concise explanation of exactly what IRBs do.

    4. Nearly everyone would agree that deceiving research participants and then subjecting them to physical harm would not be justified by filling a small gap in the research literature.

      Sentence addresses complicated issue. Phrasing "small gap in literature" sounds subjective. Would be helpful to expand this idea.

    5. Stanley Milgram’s original study on obedience to authority

      Tragic, but interesting and easy to remember example

  2. Oct 2017
    1. In essence, factor analysis organizes the variables into a smaller number of clusters, such that they are strongly correlated within each cluster but weakly correlated between clusters. Each cluster is then interpreted as multiple measures of the same underlying construct.

      Is there a standard for what would be considered a strong correlation vs. a weak correlation when organizing variables into clusters? Interpreting results of correlation matrix is a bit confusing.