A researcher is preparing a timeline for a new study.
At what point in the design process should the researcher seek approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB)?
During the time that the study assumptions are being described.
Before the study methodology is actually implemented.
Just before the findings are disseminated.
As soon as a list of potential research problems is identified.
The Correct Answer is B
Choice B rationale:
Before the study methodology is actually implemented. Rationale: Seeking approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) should occur before the study methodology is implemented. IRB approval is necessary to ensure that the study design and procedures meet ethical standards and protect the rights and well-being of research participants. It's a crucial step in the research process and should be obtained before data collection begins.
Choice A rationale:
During the time that the study assumptions are being described. Rationale: While it's important to describe study assumptions during the planning phase, seeking IRB approval is a more critical step that should precede actual data collection.
Choice C rationale:
Just before the findings are disseminated. Rationale: Waiting until just before findings are disseminated is too late to seek IRB approval. IRB approval should be obtained before data collection begins to ensure that the study is conducted ethically.
Choice D rationale:
As soon as a list of potential research problems is identified. Rationale: Seeking IRB approval at the stage of identifying research problems is premature. IRB approval is typically sought when the research design and methodology are well-defined and ready for implementation.
Nursing Test Bank
Naxlex Comprehensive Predictor Exams
Related Questions
Correct Answer is A
Explanation
Choice A rationale:
A meta-analysis that concluded that bone density improved among individuals who took Vitamin D. Rationale: A meta-analysis provides the highest level of evidence among the options listed. It synthesizes data from multiple studies, often randomized controlled trials (RCTs), to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of an intervention. In this case, the meta-analysis concluded that bone density improved among individuals who took Vitamin D, suggesting strong evidence to support its use.
Choice B rationale:
A cross-sectional study that found a strong relationship between Vitamin D intake and bone density. Rationale: Cross-sectional studies can identify associations between variables but cannot establish causality. While this study found a strong relationship, it does not provide as strong evidence as a meta-analysis of RCTs.
Choice C rationale:
A cohort study that concluded low levels of Vitamin D were linked to decreased bone mineral density. Rationale: Cohort studies can provide valuable evidence, but they may have limitations, such as confounding variables. While this study suggested a link, it may not be as robust as a meta-analysis of RCTs.
Choice D rationale:
A time series design study that reported that those who took Vitamin D had improved bone density. Rationale: Time series designs can be useful for assessing changes over time, but they may have limitations in terms of establishing causality. Additionally, the strength of evidence from a single time series study may not be as high as that from a meta-analysis of multiple RCTs.
Correct Answer is B
Explanation
Choice A rationale:
Providing all smoking adolescents in the three high schools with Program A is not a justified action based solely on the effectiveness of Program A in this study. While Program A may have shown better results than Program B in this specific context, it does not necessarily mean it's the most effective program overall. Implementing such a decision without further investigation could be premature and may not consider individual variations and preferences among adolescents.
Choice B rationale:
Investigating the effectiveness of other smoking cessation programs is the most appropriate action. While Program A showed better results in this particular study, it's essential to explore a variety of smoking cessation programs to determine the most effective and suitable options for different individuals. Research should continuously seek to improve interventions and provide evidence-based recommendations.
Choice C rationale:
Replicating the study using adolescents from across the United States may not be the best course of action at this stage. The study was conducted in the American southeast, and its findings may not be directly applicable to adolescents from different regions with potentially varying demographics and smoking behaviors. It would be more appropriate to conduct studies or meta-analyses that examine the effectiveness of smoking cessation programs on a broader scale.
Choice D rationale:
Surveying the adolescents' families to determine how many family members smoke is not directly related to the comparison of the two smoking cessation programs (Program A and Program B). While family influences can be important in smoking cessation, this action does not address the immediate need to determine the most effective program among the two options being compared.
Whether you are a student looking to ace your exams or a practicing nurse seeking to enhance your expertise , our nursing education contents will empower you with the confidence and competence to make a difference in the lives of patients and become a respected leader in the healthcare field.
Visit Naxlex, invest in your future and unlock endless possibilities with our unparalleled nursing education contents today
Report Wrong Answer on the Current Question
Do you disagree with the answer? If yes, what is your expected answer? Explain.
Kindly be descriptive with the issue you are facing.