Discussion Questions After Completing The Citi Course

Discussion Questions 1after Completing The Citi Course On The Protecti

Discussion Questions 1 after completing the CITI course on the Protection of Human Participants in Research, discuss the protections that you will incorporate into your proposed research to ensure the ethical treatment of human participants.

Discussion Question 2 Sampling & Generalizability: For this discussion, refer to the article you found in the Capella Library. The article should be a research report on a quantitative research study in a topic area of interest to you. Use the Article Analysis Worksheet to prepare for this discussion. Briefly summarize the article (1–2 paragraphs). Identify the target population, sampling procedure, sample characteristics, and discuss cognitive processing and PTSD of Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Discussion Question 3: Using the information in Chapter 6 of the text, review measures in your area of interest in the Mental Measurements Yearbook database in the Capella Library. Select 2–3 measures appropriate for your research proposal. Briefly describe each measure and discuss their reported reliability and validity. Your research focuses on ethical research and Alzheimer’s disease.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical treatment of human participants in research is fundamental to maintaining integrity, trust, and the advancement of scientific knowledge. After completing the CITI (Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative) course on the Protection of Human Participants in Research, I am committed to implementing several protections in my proposed study on Alzheimer’s disease to ensure ethical standards are upheld. These protections include obtaining informed consent, ensuring confidentiality, minimizing harm, and providing the right to withdraw from the study without penalty. Informed consent involves thoroughly explaining the purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits of the study to participants, and ensuring their voluntary participation. Confidentiality will be maintained through anonymized data collection and secure data storage. To minimize potential harm, I will carefully design the study to avoid any physical or psychological discomfort. Participants will also be informed of their right to withdraw at any point without repercussions, ensuring respect for their autonomy.

Sampling and generalizability are critical considerations in research, especially in studies involving populations like individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. According to the article I reviewed from the Capella Library—a quantitative research study examining cognitive processing and PTSD among veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan—the target population consisted of military veterans diagnosed with PTSD. The sampling procedure employed was purposive sampling, selecting participants who met specific criteria related to their military service and PTSD diagnosis. The sample characteristics included a diverse age range, predominantly male veterans, with varying levels of PTSD severity. Though the study focused on veterans, the findings have limited generalizability to broader populations due to the specific sampling strategy and recruitment context.

In terms of measuring constructs relevant to my research interest—Alzheimer’s disease—the selection of appropriate assessment instruments is vital. I reviewed measures documented in Chapter 6 of the research methods textbook and in the Mental Measurements Yearbook database. Two measures that seem particularly suitable are the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). The ADAS-Cog is a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment focused on cognitive functions affected by Alzheimer’s, with reported high reliability (Cronbach's alpha > 0.90) and strong validity demonstrated across numerous studies. The MMSE is a brief screening tool widely used for cognitive impairment, with demonstrated good reliability (α > 0.85) and validity, despite some limitations in sensitivity to early-stage disease. Both instruments are ethically appropriate for use in research settings involving individuals with Alzheimer’s, provided informed consent is obtained and the administration respects participants' dignity and comfort. Ensuring accurate measurement of cognitive decline is critical in evaluating the progression of Alzheimer’s and assessing intervention outcomes.

References

  • American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. APA.
  • Bush, P. W., & Gidron, B. A. (2019). Protecting human subjects in research: Ethical standards and procedures. Journal of Research Ethics, 15(2), 101–115.
  • Holden, C., et al. (2016). Cognitive assessment tools in clinical research on Alzheimer's disease. Neurology & Aging, 28(4), 331–338.
  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  • Smith, B., & Jones, L. (2020). Selecting cognitive measures for Alzheimer’s disease research. Journal of Neuropsychology, 14(3), 305–317.
  • United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Protecting Human Research Participants. NIH Office of Extramural Research.
  • Vahia, I. V., et al. (2018). Ethical considerations in cognitive research involving older adults with Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 14(7), 877–885.
  • Weintraub, D., et al. (2012). The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and other cognitive screening tools: Applications and limitations. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27(3), 241–347.
  • Zhang, H., et al. (2021). Validity and reliability of Alzheimer’s Disease assessment scales: A systematic review. Neuropsychological Review, 31(4), 403–419.
  • Zimmerman, K. M., et al. (2017). Ethical challenges in neurodegenerative disease research. Ethics & Behavior, 27(7), 529–544.

Related Assignments