The Institutional Review Board is a university or college committee that
a. evaluates proposals and awards grant $ to researchers
b. evaluates the methodological soundness of research proposals
c. evaluates the ethical soundness of research
d. all of the above
I think C is the answer is that correct
Suppose you have a 2x2 design in which one of the variables is a between subjects factor and one of the variables is a within subjects factor. Further suppose that there will be 30 subjects in the upper-left hand cell of the 2x2 array. How many subjects are needed to complete the study?
a. 60
b.30
c. 120
d. cannot be determined with the available information
IRB's have been criticized by some researchers in psychology. What is an often heard and serious criticism?
a. there is no appeal process to protect researchers from overzealous IRBs
b. IRB procedures slow down the research process
c. because psychologists have always had a keen sense to ethical issues, IRBs are not really needed
d.IRBs should be made up of research scientists only, nonscientists just don't get it.
I think the answer is d.
For the first question, the correct answer is d. all of the above. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) evaluates proposals and awards grant funds to researchers, evaluates the methodological soundness of research proposals, and evaluates the ethical soundness of research. So, all three options are correct.
For the second question, we need to calculate the total number of subjects required to complete the study. In this 2x2 design with one between-subjects factor and one within-subjects factor, we know there are 30 subjects in the upper-left hand cell. However, without any further information about the specific design or requirements, it is not possible to determine how many subjects are needed to complete the study. Therefore, the answer is d. cannot be determined with the available information.
Regarding the third question, the often heard and serious criticism of IRBs in psychology, the correct answer is a. there is no appeal process to protect researchers from overzealous IRBs. This criticism suggests that researchers do not have a mechanism to challenge or appeal decisions made by IRBs, potentially leading to unfair treatment or restrictions on their research.