Essay Example on Ethical Concerns, Reliability, and Validity in Research: A Critical Analysis

Study Violates Principle of Respect: Yes or No?

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Yes, the study violates the principle of respect for persons in that it took advantage of parents’ lack of financial capacities (Ethics in Mental Health Research. n.d). Restraining admission to children whose parents were willing to allow their children to undertake the study due to financial constraints was wrongly informed and demeaning, considering that such parents were helpless.

Does the study violate the principle of beneficence? Why or why not?

Regarding the violation of the principle of beneficence, the study violates this principle based on the fact that the children that were infected with the live virus could have stayed without it and again, the vaccine was not a guarantee at that moment; hence, children could battle the virus without treatment after that.

Does this study violate the principle of justice? Why or why not?

Based on the prevailing conditions at Willowbrook, the vaccine was needed with some level of urgency; in that regard, studies for the development of a vaccine were eminent (Ethics in Mental Health Research.n.d). However, the principal investigator failed to come up with a compensation plan that could be applied to the infected children, should the vaccine fail to work. In that regard, Dr. Krugman violated the principle of justice.

The Tudor study, nicknamed the ‘Monster Study,’ described in the article contained deception. Describe the element of deception and whether the deception was an act of omission or commission

The element of deception is illuminated by Tudor lying to well-talking children that they were beginning to stutter and that it was a concern to the staff. She also applied deception to the other category of children who initially had a stuttering problem by telling them that the problem was just a phase that they would transcend at the opportune moment (Reynolds,2003). The deception described herein is an act of commission rather than omission since Tudor was privy to the fact that the healthy children were okay, yet she went ahead and lied to them otherwise.

Did Wendell Johnson engage in research misconduct regarding his handling of the Tudor study results? Why or why not?

Yes, Johnson engaged in research misconduct because he was a walking testimony that once one became a stutterer for whatever reasons, it was difficult to reverse the process. He did not have a solution to children that could end up being stutterers like him.

Homework Chapter 5

What is the scale of measurement of the “checking phones” variable?

The “checking phones” variable represents an ordinal scale of measurement in that it provides a ranking order. The student who checks their phone is ranked higher than the one who least checks it.

What kind(s) of reliability would need to be evaluated for the phone measure?

One reliability concern stem from the fact that students could be checking the phones with an intension of keeping up with time. Such an act could lead to a minute impact on their performance in college.

Another reliability concern could result from students switching off their phones, which would easily be confused with impactful phone checking.

How might you show that this measure of narcissism has criterion validity? Give an example of data that you would collect and describe what the results would look like.

Criterion validity could be authenticated by proving the relationship between a pair of statements. For instance, insisting on getting the respect that is due to one is correlated to the genuine connection they amass after engaging various kinds of people. I would take a person through activities that involve engagements with other persons (D. R., Rose & Anderson, 2006). In the activities mentioned above, I would ensure that the person pursues both respectful and disrespectful activities. I would then go ahead and ask participants if they thought each event was respectful or disrespectful. Perchance, the person engaged in both respectful and disrespectful activities, is likely to receive comments attributed to their acts.

How might you show that this measure has discriminant validity? Give an example of data that you would collect and describe what the results would look like.

One would show the existence of discriminant validity by doubting the correlation between a pair. For instance, if everybody likes to hear one’s stories, then indicating that the stories are sometimes unpleasant makes the couple uncorrelated (D. R., Rose & Anderson, 2006). I would prove this by guiding a person who believes their stories are interesting to anyone to tell a story each to separate groups. I would then ask the group members about their experience of the story session. Most probably, not all group members would be intrigued by the stories.