EPPP: Part 2, Skills Quiz: Research Integrity
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Research IntegrityQuestion 1 of 20

A psychologist is reviewing a manuscript for a journal. She realizes the manuscript describes a study that is nearly identical to one her own lab is about to submit for publication. She believes the submitted manuscript has a critical methodological flaw that, if corrected, would make it much stronger.

What is the reviewer's most ethical course of action?

Reject the manuscript based on the flaw without providing specific details, to protect her own lab's research advantage.
Contact the manuscript's author directly to propose a collaboration between the two labs.
Recommend rejection but provide a detailed, constructive critique of the flaw to the editor, without using the information for her own work.
Inform the editor of the conflict of interest and recuse herself from the review process without providing further comment.
← Back to quizzes

EPPP: Part 2, Skills Quiz

EPPP: Part 2, Skills Quiz: Research Integrity

Practice Research Integrity in EPPP: Part 2, Skills with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Research Integrity, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for EPPP: Part 2, Skills.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

A psychologist is reviewing a manuscript for a journal. She realizes the manuscript describes a study that is nearly identical to one her own lab is about to submit for publication. She believes the submitted manuscript has a critical methodological flaw that, if corrected, would make it much stronger.

What is the reviewer's most ethical course of action?

  1. Reject the manuscript based on the flaw without providing specific details, to protect her own lab's research advantage.
  2. Contact the manuscript's author directly to propose a collaboration between the two labs.
  3. Recommend rejection but provide a detailed, constructive critique of the flaw to the editor, without using the information for her own work.
  4. Inform the editor of the conflict of interest and recuse herself from the review process without providing further comment. (correct answer)
Explanation: The reviewer has a significant conflict of interest because she is in direct competition with the author. The information in the manuscript is confidential. Acting on it, even to provide a critique, is problematic. The most ethical course of action is to immediately notify the editor of the conflict and recuse herself from the review. This maintains the confidentiality of the peer review process and avoids any appearance of impropriety. Rejecting it to gain an advantage (A) is a profound ethical breach. Contacting the author directly (B) violates the confidential nature of the review process. Providing a detailed critique (C) could be seen as using her privileged access to the manuscript to influence the field, even if her intentions are good.

Question 2

A principal investigator (PI) is supervising a graduate student on a research project. The student develops a novel and highly effective statistical approach for analyzing the project's complex dataset. The PI writes the final manuscript and lists herself as first author, arguing that the project was her original idea and that she secured the funding.

The PI's action is ethically problematic because authorship should primarily be based on:

  1. the amount of grant money secured for the project.
  2. the originality of the initial research question.
  3. the intellectual contribution to the final product. (correct answer)
  4. the hierarchical position within the research lab.
Explanation: According to APA Ethical Standard 8.12 (Publication Credit), authorship should reflect the individuals' relative scientific or professional contributions to the work. Developing a novel statistical approach is a significant intellectual contribution. While the PI's contributions (idea, funding) are important and warrant authorship, the student's contribution may be substantial enough for first authorship. The PI's unilateral decision based on hierarchy (D) or funding (A) is unethical. The initial idea (B) is a contribution, but not the sole determinant of authorship order. The situation required a collaborative discussion about contributions.

Question 3

A postdoctoral researcher conducts the majority of the experimental work for a study, including designing the methodology, collecting all data, and performing the statistical analysis. Her faculty supervisor secured the grant funding, provided overall project direction, and edited the final manuscript. A graduate student assisted by writing the initial literature review for the manuscript.

According to APA ethical guidelines on publication credit, what is the most appropriate approach to determining authorship?

  1. The faculty supervisor should be listed as first author due to their senior role and securing of funding, followed by the postdoctoral researcher.
  2. Authorship order should be determined through a discussion among the three individuals, based on the relative intellectual contribution of each to the research. (correct answer)
  3. The postdoctoral researcher should be the sole author as she performed the core scientific work, with the others acknowledged in a footnote.
  4. Authorship should be granted to all three individuals in alphabetical order to reflect equal contribution to the project's completion.
Explanation: APA Ethical Standard 8.12 states that authorship is based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, not on their institutional position. The best practice is to discuss contributions and agree upon authorship order. The postdoctoral researcher likely warrants first authorship given her substantial contributions, but this must be decided via discussion. Distractor A incorrectly bases authorship on hierarchy. Distractor C incorrectly dismisses the supervisor's and student's contributions, which appear to meet the threshold for authorship. Distractor D assumes equal contribution, which is unlikely given the described roles.

Question 4

A junior faculty member is analyzing data for a study crucial for his tenure application. The primary hypothesis test yields a p-value of .07, narrowly missing the conventional .05 threshold for statistical significance. He notices that removing data from three participants who appeared unmotivated during the experiment would result in a p-value of .04.

What is the psychologist's most ethical course of action?

  1. Remove the three outlier participants but transparently report their exclusion and the justification in the methods section.
  2. Report the results as non-significant and discuss potential reasons, such as the observed motivation issues, in the discussion section. (correct answer)
  3. Consult with the department chair for guidance on how to handle the data to best support his tenure application.
  4. Conduct a post-hoc power analysis to argue that the study was underpowered and that the trend is meaningful.
Explanation: Ethical Standard 8.10 (Reporting Research Results) prohibits data fabrication or falsification. Selectively removing data points to achieve a desired outcome is a form of falsification. The most ethical action is to report the results accurately as they were obtained. Distractor A represents a questionable research practice; while transparency is better than concealment, the decision to remove data is biased by the desired outcome. Distractor C introduces a conflict of interest and undue influence. Distractor D is a data interpretation strategy but does not change the ethical obligation to report the primary analysis results accurately.

Question 5

A professor offers students in his large introductory psychology course the option to participate in his 2-hour research study to earn 5 extra credit points on their final exam. The only alternative offered for the same number of points is to write a 15-page research paper on a topic assigned by the professor, which students estimate would take at least 10-12 hours to complete.

According to ethical standards for research with student populations, this scenario is problematic because:

  1. offering extra credit as an incentive for research participation is strictly prohibited.
  2. the alternative task is not of comparable difficulty and time commitment, creating undue influence. (correct answer)
  3. student participants may not provide valid data due to a lack of interest in the research.
  4. the professor is in a position of authority, creating a dual relationship with the students.
Explanation: Ethical Standard 8.04 (Client/Patient, Student, and Subordinate Research Participants) requires that when research participation is a course requirement or an opportunity for extra credit, prospective participants must be given the choice of equitable alternative activities. The significant disparity in time and effort between the two options makes the research participation feel like the only viable choice, which is unduly influential and compromises the voluntariness of the consent. Offering extra credit is not prohibited (A). While data validity (C) is a concern, it is secondary to the ethical problem of coercion. The dual relationship (D) is inherent in such situations and is managed by ensuring voluntary participation, which is the core issue here.

Question 6

A research study uses deception to examine the effects of social exclusion. After the study, a participant becomes visibly upset during the debriefing, stating that the experience brought up painful memories of being bullied. The standard debriefing protocol involves a two-page written explanation and a brief verbal summary.

What is the researcher's primary ethical obligation in this situation?

  1. Adhere strictly to the IRB-approved debriefing script to ensure consistency across all participants.
  2. Remove the participant's data from the study, as their extreme reaction may be an outlier.
  3. Take immediate steps to mitigate harm, which may include extended discussion and providing referrals for support. (correct answer)
  4. Thank the participant for their time and inform them that their reaction will be noted in the study report.
Explanation: According to APA Ethical Standard 8.07 (Deception in Research) and 8.08 (Debriefing), psychologists have an obligation to correct any misconceptions and to take reasonable steps to reduce or remedy any harm the research may have caused. When a participant shows distress, the primary obligation is their welfare, which overrides strict adherence to a script. This includes ensuring the participant's distress is addressed before they leave the study. Removing data (B) is a methodological decision, not an ethical response to harm. Simply noting the reaction (D) is insufficient to meet the duty to minimize harm.

Question 7

A psychologist is the principal investigator on a study testing the efficacy of a new mindfulness app developed by a tech startup. The startup is funding the research and has offered the psychologist a position on their paid scientific advisory board, contingent on the study producing positive results.

Which action is required for the psychologist to manage this conflict of interest ethically?

  1. Accept the advisory board position but donate the entire stipend to a neutral third-party charity to eliminate the financial incentive.
  2. Disclose the potential for the advisory board position to the IRB but not to study participants, to avoid biasing their responses.
  3. Decline the advisory board position because its contingent nature creates an unacceptable threat to scientific objectivity. (correct answer)
  4. Accept the advisory board position but arrange for an independent monitor to oversee the data collection and analysis.
Explanation: A conflict of interest exists when a researcher's personal interests could compromise their professional judgment. An offer that is contingent on positive results creates a powerful and direct incentive to bias the research process or reporting. This goes beyond a standard financial relationship and represents a severe threat to objectivity that cannot be easily managed. Therefore, declining the offer is the most appropriate ethical action. Donating the money (A) does not remove the incentive to produce a certain outcome. Disclosing only to the IRB (B) is insufficient. An independent monitor (D) is a management strategy for some conflicts, but the contingent nature of this offer makes it fundamentally problematic.

Question 8

A researcher submits a study protocol to the IRB that involves surveying adults about their dietary habits and mood. He believes the study qualifies for exempt status due to its low-risk nature. The IRB reviews the protocol and determines that because it includes questions about depressive symptoms which could be distressing for some, it requires expedited review instead.

What is the researcher's ethical responsibility at this point?

  1. Withdraw the study and redesign it to ensure it meets the criteria for exempt status.
  2. Proceed with the expedited review process as determined by the IRB and provide any additional materials requested. (correct answer)
  3. Challenge the IRB's decision by arguing that the questions are standard and used in many exempt studies.
  4. Begin data collection, as the IRB has confirmed the study does not require a full board review.
Explanation: Researchers must comply with the determinations of their IRB. The IRB is the federally mandated body responsible for assessing risk and determining the appropriate level of review. Even if the researcher disagrees, their ethical and legal obligation is to follow the IRB's requirements. Proceeding with the expedited review process is the correct action. Withdrawing the study (A) is an option but not an ethical responsibility. Challenging the decision (C) can be part of a dialogue, but the final authority rests with the IRB; one cannot proceed without their approval. Starting data collection (D) is a serious ethical violation, as expedited review still requires IRB approval before research can begin.

Question 9

A psychologist is conducting research with a recent immigrant population. She uses a well-validated depression inventory that was developed and normed on a primarily White, middle-class, English-speaking sample. She does not conduct a pilot study to assess the measure's cultural appropriateness.

The primary ethical concern with this research practice is the potential for:

  1. violating the publisher's copyright on the assessment instrument.
  2. failing to obtain informed consent in the participants' native language.
  3. increasing the time burden on a vulnerable population.
  4. generating invalid data and making culturally biased interpretations. (correct answer)
Explanation: Ethical principles of justice and beneficence, as well as standards on assessment (Standard 9.02, Use of Assessments), require psychologists to use instruments that are appropriate for the specific population being studied. Using a measure without evidence of its validity and reliability in a new cultural group can lead to inaccurate data and harmful, pathologizing interpretations. This is a core issue of research integrity. While copyright (A), time burden (C), and language of consent (D) are all potential concerns in research, the most direct and serious flaw described is the use of a culturally inappropriate measure, which undermines the validity and ethical utility of the entire study.

Question 10

During a neuroimaging study on memory, a researcher observes an anomaly in a participant's brain scan that could potentially indicate a serious medical condition. The research protocol and consent form do not have a plan for managing such incidental findings.

What is the researcher's most appropriate course of action?

  1. Ignore the finding, as the researcher is not a qualified medical professional to make a diagnosis and the scan was for research purposes only.
  2. Inform the participant directly that they may have a serious medical condition and recommend they see a neurologist immediately.
  3. Consult with a qualified medical expert and the IRB to develop a plan for how to responsibly and ethically communicate the finding to the participant. (correct answer)
  4. Note the anomaly in the research log but withhold the information from the participant to avoid causing undue anxiety over a non-definitive finding.
Explanation: Incidental findings pose a significant ethical dilemma. The researcher has a potential duty to warn, but is not qualified to diagnose. Ignoring the finding (A) or withholding it (D) could be a breach of beneficence. Informing the participant directly (B) could cause unnecessary alarm and is outside the researcher's scope of practice. The most responsible approach is to consult with experts (e.g., a radiologist or neurologist) to interpret the finding's significance and with the IRB to determine an ethical procedure for disclosure. This ensures the information is handled by qualified professionals and in a way that is sensitive to the participant's well-being.

Question 11

A researcher is conducting a study on smoking cessation in a low-income community and is offering $200 for participation in a one-day study involving interviews and surveys. The local average daily wage is approximately $100. Some community leaders express concern that the amount is so high it might compel people to participate against their better judgment.

This scenario raises an ethical concern regarding whether the payment acts as:

  1. a fair compensation for time and effort.
  2. a violation of participant anonymity.
  3. an inefficient use of grant funds.
  4. an undue inducement to participate. (correct answer)
Explanation: According to APA Ethical Standard 8.06 (Offering Inducements for Research Participation), psychologists must avoid offering excessive or inappropriate financial inducements that are likely to coerce participation. An inducement becomes 'undue' when it is so attractive that it could lead individuals, particularly those in vulnerable financial situations, to overlook or ignore the risks of the research. The payment being double the local daily wage raises this concern. While compensation should be fair (A), it should not be coercive. The use of funds (C) is a budgetary, not an ethical, issue. The payment method could affect anonymity (D), but the core issue with the amount is undue inducement.

Question 12

A research assistant is instructed by the principal investigator (PI) to use a specific statistical software package to analyze data. The assistant notices the software is generating error codes suggesting a violation of statistical assumptions, which could invalidate the results. The PI dismisses the concern, stating, 'This is the standard analysis we've always used for these data.'

What is the research assistant's most appropriate next step?

  1. Perform the analysis as instructed but also perform an alternative analysis and present both to the PI. (correct answer)
  2. Follow the PI's instructions to maintain a good working relationship and avoid confrontation.
  3. Resign from the position to avoid being associated with potentially flawed research.
  4. Anonymously report the PI's behavior to the university's research integrity officer.
Explanation: This situation calls for a graded response that respects the hierarchy while upholding scientific integrity. The assistant's first responsibility is to ensure the science is sound. By conducting both analyses, the assistant can demonstrate the issue with concrete data, providing a non-confrontational way to re-address the concern with the PI. This allows the PI an opportunity to correct the course. Following instructions blindly (A) would be complicit in poor science. Resigning (C) or reporting to an integrity officer (D) are more extreme steps that might be considered if the PI insists on publishing flawed results after further discussion.

Question 13

A psychologist submits a manuscript to Journal A. After three months without a response, she becomes anxious about the delay and submits the same manuscript to Journal B for consideration.

This action is an ethical violation known as:

  1. duplicate submission. (correct answer)
  2. piecemeal publication.
  3. self-plagiarism.
  4. citation negligence.
Explanation: Duplicate submission (or multiple submission) is the practice of submitting the same manuscript to two or more journals at the same time. It is considered unethical because it wastes the time of editors and peer reviewers and can lead to copyright issues if both journals accept the work. Piecemeal publication (A) refers to breaking up one study into multiple smaller publications. Self-plagiarism (C) is reusing one's own previous work without citation. Citation negligence (D) is not a standard term, but would refer to failing to cite sources appropriately.

Question 14

A psychologist is preparing a journal article that expands upon a theoretical model she first published in a book chapter two years prior. She copies a 500-word section verbatim from her original book chapter to use in the introduction of the new article without providing a citation.

Which ethical issue is most prominently raised by this action?

  1. Copyright infringement, as the publisher of the book may hold the copyright to the text.
  2. Self-plagiarism, as she is presenting her previously published work as new scholarship. (correct answer)
  3. Data fabrication, because she is reusing old ideas instead of creating new ones.
  4. Insufficient credit, as she is not acknowledging the editors of the original book.
Explanation: Presenting one's own previously published work as new is a form of plagiarism known as self-plagiarism or duplicate publication (APA Standard 8.13). While copyright infringement (A) is also a potential legal issue, self-plagiarism is the direct ethical breach in the context of scientific integrity. The action is not data fabrication (C), which involves making up data. While acknowledging editors (D) is good practice, the primary ethical failure is not citing her own prior work and presenting it as novel.

Question 15

Following the publication of her study, a psychologist receives a request from another researcher for the complete, de-identified dataset to verify the findings. The original informed consent form stated that "data will be kept confidential and used for research purposes only." It did not specifically mention sharing data with external researchers.

What is the psychologist's most appropriate first step?

  1. Refuse the request immediately, as sharing the data would violate the original consent agreement.
  2. Send the de-identified dataset promptly to uphold the scientific principle of data sharing and verification.
  3. Consult with her institution's IRB or ethics committee to determine if sharing the data is permissible. (correct answer)
  4. Agree to share the data only if the requesting researcher offers co-authorship on any subsequent publications.
Explanation: APA Ethical Standard 8.14 (Sharing Research Data for Verification) encourages data sharing but also emphasizes the need to protect participant confidentiality. Given the ambiguity in the consent form, the psychologist cannot unilaterally decide to share or refuse. The IRB is the appropriate body to interpret the consent language, weigh the ethical obligations of confidentiality against the scientific principle of verification, and determine the permissible course of action. Refusing immediately (A) may be contrary to scientific ideals if the IRB determines sharing is acceptable. Sharing immediately (B) risks violating participant consent. Demanding co-authorship (D) is coercive and unethical.

Question 16

A psychologist plans a study using an animal model of anxiety. The proposed procedure involves significant stressors that are known to cause lasting distress in the animals. The expected scientific knowledge to be gained is modest and primarily confirmatory of existing theories.

The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is most likely to reject this study based on a failure to:

  1. justify the potential scientific value in relation to the cost of animal suffering. (correct answer)
  2. provide adequate veterinary care for the animals post-procedure.
  3. use a sufficient number of animals to achieve statistical power.
  4. ensure that all research personnel are properly trained in handling the animals.
Explanation: A core principle of animal research ethics is the cost-benefit analysis. The researcher must justify that the potential harm and distress to the animals are outweighed by the anticipated scientific value of the research. In this case, the high level of distress coupled with modest scientific gain makes the justification weak. While veterinary care (A), statistical power (C), and personnel training (D) are all critical components of an IACUC protocol, the fundamental ethical imbalance between animal suffering and scientific value is the most likely reason for rejection.

Question 17

A study investigating a new therapy yields mixed results. The primary outcome measure shows no significant difference between the treatment and control groups. However, two of the five secondary outcome measures show statistically significant improvements for the treatment group.

When preparing the manuscript for publication, which approach demonstrates the highest level of research integrity?

  1. Presenting the significant findings on the secondary measures as the main results to create a more compelling narrative.
  2. Reporting the non-significant primary outcome first and then reporting the mixed results from the secondary outcomes, discussing the full pattern. (correct answer)
  3. Publishing only the significant results and planning a separate publication for the non-significant findings at a later time.
  4. Omitting the non-significant primary outcome from the report, as it failed to support the study's hypothesis.
Explanation: Ethical Standard 8.10 (Reporting Research Results) requires psychologists to report their findings accurately and not to omit pertinent data. This includes reporting results that do not support the hypothesis. The most transparent and ethical approach is to report the findings from the pre-specified primary outcome measure first, followed by the secondary outcomes, and to provide a balanced interpretation of the entire set of results. Focusing only on positive results (A), omitting negative ones (D), or selectively publishing findings (C) are all forms of biased reporting that misrepresent the study's actual outcome.

Question 18

A research team conducts a longitudinal study and stores identifiable participant data on a password-protected, but unencrypted, laptop. The laptop is stolen from a researcher's car. The data includes names, addresses, and sensitive clinical information.

Upon discovering the theft, what is the research team's most urgent ethical responsibility?

  1. Immediately attempt to replicate the lost data by re-contacting the participants.
  2. Notify the institution's IRB and legal counsel to determine the appropriate steps for disclosure and mitigation. (correct answer)
  3. Wait to see if the data is misused before taking further action to avoid causing unnecessary alarm to participants.
  4. Delete all backup copies of the data to prevent any further potential breaches of the same information.
Explanation: Upon a data breach, the immediate ethical (and often legal) responsibility is to report the incident to the relevant institutional authorities, such as the IRB and legal counsel. These bodies will guide the researchers on subsequent steps, which may include notifying participants and regulatory agencies. This ensures a systematic and compliant response to protect participants and the institution. Attempting to replicate data (A) is a scientific issue, not the immediate ethical priority. Waiting (C) is an irresponsible delay that could increase harm to participants. Deleting backups (D) is illogical and would hinder recovery and investigation.

Question 19

A psychologist has finished data collection for a study with null results; the findings did not support her initial, high-profile hypothesis. Her institution is pressuring faculty to produce positive, publishable findings. She considers placing the study in her file drawer and not attempting to publish it.

The decision to not publish this study would contribute to what systemic ethical issue in research?

  1. The publication bias, by withholding null results from the scientific literature. (correct answer)
  2. The replication crisis, by preventing others from building on her methods.
  3. The decline in university research funding, by failing to produce a return on investment.
  4. The erosion of public trust in peer review processes.
Explanation: Publication bias, also known as the 'file drawer problem,' is the systemic issue where statistically significant (positive) results are more likely to be published than non-significant (null) results. This skews the scientific literature, making interventions seem more effective than they are. Ethically, all well-conducted research contributes to the knowledge base, and withholding null findings is a failure to report results accurately and completely. While it may relate to the replication crisis (A), the more specific term for this issue is publication bias. Funding (C) and peer review (D) are related concerns, but the core ethical problem is the bias in the literature.

Question 20

An interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial for a new psychotherapy for severe anxiety reveals that the treatment is causing a statistically significant increase in adverse events, including panic attacks, compared to the placebo group. The study was planned to continue for another six months.

What is the research oversight committee's primary ethical responsibility?

  1. To modify the inclusion criteria to enroll participants less prone to panic attacks.
  2. To introduce a new component to the psychotherapy aimed at managing panic attacks.
  3. To continue the study to completion to gather definitive data on the adverse events.
  4. To halt the study immediately to prevent further harm to participants. (correct answer)
Explanation: The principle of non-maleficence (do no harm) is paramount in clinical research. When clear evidence emerges that an intervention is causing harm, the ethical obligation is to stop the study to protect current and future participants. Continuing the study (C) would be unethical. Modifying the inclusion criteria (A) or the intervention (D) does not adequately address the harm being done to the currently enrolled participants in the treatment arm.