PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R L Rosnow

Publications and source records attributed to R L Rosnow.

15 recordsLinked to original sources

Contrasts and correlations in effect-size estimation.

This article describes procedures for presenting standardized measures of effect size when contrasts are used to ask focused questions of data. The simplest contrasts consist of comparisons of two samples (e.g., based on the independent t statistic). Useful effect-size indices in this situation are members of the g family (e.g., Hedges's g and Cohen's d) and the Pearson r. We review expressions for calculating these measures and for transforming them back and forth, and describe how to adjust formulas for obtaining g or d from t, or r from g, when the sample sizes are unequal. The real-life implications of d or g calculated from t become problematic when there are more than two groups, but the correlational approach is adaptable and interpretable, although more complex than in the case of two groups. We describe a family of four conceptually related correlation indices: the alerting correlation, the contrast correlation, the effect-size correlation, and the BESD (binomial effect-size display) correlation. These last three correlations are identical in the simple setting of only two groups, but differ when there are more than two groups.

Analysis of Variance↗

The institutional review board as a mirror of scientific and ethical standards.

Decisions by institutional review boards (IRBs) are presumed to reflect the norms and standards of the scientific community. Such criteria have shifted as changes have occurred in experimental interventions and protocols, codes of federal regulatory agencies, norms among investigators, and expectations of participants. The tension created by shifting norms and standards raises two questions: (a) Should IRBs evaluate the scientific (e.g., design) features of the proposed research, and (b) should consistent standards be expected even in areas that are in constant flux (e.g., AIDS research)? We discuss these questions and propose a mechanism to keep IRBs abreast of emergent issues and sensitized not only to the costs of doing research but also to the costs of not doing it.

Animal Experimentation↗

Scientific rewards and conflicts of ethical choices in human subjects research.

The primary responsibility of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Committee on Standards in Research (CSR) is to advise the APA on issues and standards related to the protection of human participants in psychological research. A related goal is to enhance the use of good ethical practices by APA members. The purpose of this article is to foster the view of research ethics not as an affront to the integrity of sound research, but as opportunities for scientific rewards, including increased understanding of the meaning of data, enhanced recruitment, and the inclusion of more representative samples. Three ethical practices are discussed as examples of this general premise: respect for confidentiality, use of debriefing, and assurance that participants are noncoerced volunteers. The Committee's intent is to promote consideration of these issues, not to promulgate specific guidelines or procedures.

Advisory Committees↗