You have an idea for a study, but after reviewing the literature you realize

1. You have an idea for a study, but after reviewing the literature you realize that the intervention you had in mind has already been tested for people with the disease you planned to focus on. The only difference is that you would be conducting the study within a different population. You should conclude that your study idea is not original. T/F

2.The specific aim statement, "To assess whether more expercise is better for overweight children" is...?a. too precise. B. too vague c. just right.

3.Studies that randomize participants into intervention or control groups can still meet the "distributive justice" principle even though not all the participants receive the intervention. T/F

4.Researchers are conducting an analysis using a de-identified dataset that was created at a hospital for quality reporting purposes. There is a good chance that the IRB would consider this study "exempt" on the grounds that:

It would likely not meet the "beneficence" principle.

The informed consent process would not be feasible.

The research involves analysis of an existing dataset.

All research that does not involve blatant human rights abuses is considered.

5.The 4 components of the "PICO" framework are most useful for developing questions for quantitative studies. For qualitative studies you might only be addressing the "P" and "O" components. T/F

6.If you have a scale that always reads your weight as 20 pounds more than it really is, you could say that:

		The scale is valid, but not reliable
		The scale is reliable, but not valid
		The scale is neither reliable nor valid
		It is time to go on a diet

7.A study on a new depression treatment recruited patients who scored in the highest depression range ("severely depressed") on the PHQ9 depression screen questionnaire. These patients were assigned to either a treatment or a comparison group. At the end of the study the participants retook the PHQ9, and it was observed that the scores improved in both study groups. This is probably an example of:

		A Reliability Threat
		Regression Threat
		Instrumentation Threat
		A Threat to External Validity

8.When we figure out how to turn a construct that we want to include in an index into some sort of quantitative score, we are FILL IN THE BLANK the construct.

		Validating
		Abstracting
		Operationalizing
		Weighting

9. If the primary outcome of your study prefectly captures the concept you are studying, you could say that your study has excellent...

		External Validity
		Reliability
		Construct Validity
		None of the Above

10. A study to answer the question, "Why is diabetes prevalence higher among Native Americans in Maine?" is mostly likely employing which of the following designs?

		Cross-sectional
		Case-control
		Randomized Clinical Trial
		Pretest-Post Test Nonequivalent Group Design

11.The quasi-experimental design that most closely matches a pretest-post test randomized experiment, only without randomizing the groups is a...

		Case-control
		Randomized clinical trial
		Cross-sectional
		Pretest-post test nonequivalent group design

12. If the richest person in town moved to the poorest neighborhood in town, and you then calculated the average income of that neighborhood, you would be at risk of committing an ecological fallacy T/F