VCAA 2008 exam Q22

[studying_hard]

The very last question it asks for an ethical consideration being breached and i wrote confidentialty because there is no mention of it anywhere but it was not accepted. Can someone else have a look and tell me why it wasn't accpted or if it the VCAA who are wrong.
thanks
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vcaa/vce/studies/psychology/pastexams/2008/2008psych2-w.pdf

[Slumdawg]

The assessor's reports are basically never wrong for psych. Roger Edwards definitely knows his stuff. So you can be confident that he's right.

You need to write an ethical principle which is being breached in the case study. Does it mention that the researcher revealed the identity of one of the participants? No. So you can't write confidentiality. You can't assume something just because it hasn't been explicitly stated. The ethical principle that wasn't abided by SHOULD be in the case study somewhere, so scan through it till you find something that fits. If you look you should see "were given extra marks for their course for taking part" or something like that. This doesn't follow the principle of voluntary participation. Hope that helps.

[studying_hard]

The assessor's reports are basically never wrong for psych. Roger Edwards definitely knows his stuff. So you can be confident that he's right.

You need to write an ethical principle which is being breached in the case study. Does it mention that the researcher revealed the identity of one of the participants? No. So you can't write confidentiality. You can't assume something just because it hasn't been explicitly stated. The ethical principle that wasn't abided by SHOULD be in the case study somewhere, so scan through it till you find something that fits. If you look you should see "were given extra marks for their course for taking part" or something like that. This doesn't follow the principle of voluntary participation. Hope that helps.

thanks, so your saying don't assume anyything and alsays go for somthing that is explicitly stated?

[Slumdawg]

The assessor's reports are basically never wrong for psych. Roger Edwards definitely knows his stuff. So you can be confident that he's right.

You need to write an ethical principle which is being breached in the case study. Does it mention that the researcher revealed the identity of one of the participants? No. So you can't write confidentiality. You can't assume something just because it hasn't been explicitly stated. The ethical principle that wasn't abided by SHOULD be in the case study somewhere, so scan through it till you find something that fits. If you look you should see "were given extra marks for their course for taking part" or something like that. This doesn't follow the principle of voluntary participation. Hope that helps.

thanks, so your saying don't assume anyything and alsays go for somthing that is explicitly stated?

Spot on. Otherwise your answers may seem too general or generic. The assessors would think, this student only knows confidentiality so they've just used it in their response. You must always relate the answer back to the case study. The whole of the research methods section states "use the following case study as a basis for your response". So by just picking confidentiality out of thin air you're not following that instruction hence you can't get any marks for it.

If it's not stated obviously then you've missed something. I have yet to see a case study where the answer isn't actually in it.

[studying_hard]

The assessor's reports are basically never wrong for psych. Roger Edwards definitely knows his stuff. So you can be confident that he's right.

You need to write an ethical principle which is being breached in the case study. Does it mention that the researcher revealed the identity of one of the participants? No. So you can't write confidentiality. You can't assume something just because it hasn't been explicitly stated. The ethical principle that wasn't abided by SHOULD be in the case study somewhere, so scan through it till you find something that fits. If you look you should see "were given extra marks for their course for taking part" or something like that. This doesn't follow the principle of voluntary participation. Hope that helps.

thanks, so your saying don't assume anyything and alsays go for somthing that is explicitly stated?

Spot on. Otherwise your answers may seem too general or generic. The assessors would think, this student only knows confidentiality so they've just used it in their response. You must always relate the answer back to the case study. The whole of the research methods section states "use the following case study as a basis for your response". So by just picking confidentiality out of thin air you're not following that instruction hence you can't get any marks for it.

If it's not stated obviously then you've missed something. I have yet to see a case study where the answer isn't actually in it.

kk . I was completing the exam under exam conditions and thought I was running out of time so I only had a quick skim through and missed that the participants were coerced into the study (incready end of year mark for participating) which is "Volountry Participation". Turns  at I was finished after an hour and ten minutes lol so I can be more careful in the future. Thanks

[minilunchbox]

The assessor's reports are basically never wrong for psych. Roger Edwards definitely knows his stuff. So you can be confident that he's right.

You need to write an ethical principle which is being breached in the case study. Does it mention that the researcher revealed the identity of one of the participants? No. So you can't write confidentiality. You can't assume something just because it hasn't been explicitly stated. The ethical principle that wasn't abided by SHOULD be in the case study somewhere, so scan through it till you find something that fits. If you look you should see "were given extra marks for their course for taking part" or something like that. This doesn't follow the principle of voluntary participation. Hope that helps.

Does that include informed consent?

[Slumdawg]

The assessor's reports are basically never wrong for psych. Roger Edwards definitely knows his stuff. So you can be confident that he's right.

You need to write an ethical principle which is being breached in the case study. Does it mention that the researcher revealed the identity of one of the participants? No. So you can't write confidentiality. You can't assume something just because it hasn't been explicitly stated. The ethical principle that wasn't abided by SHOULD be in the case study somewhere, so scan through it till you find something that fits. If you look you should see "were given extra marks for their course for taking part" or something like that. This doesn't follow the principle of voluntary participation. Hope that helps.

Does that include informed consent?

"Professional conduct or voluntary participation. The participants were coerced into taking part by being given extra marks for their participation.
Withdrawal Rights. There is no evidence that participants were informed of their rights to leave the experiment at any stage or to have their results eliminated after the completion of the research. This was accepted as correct, though withdrawal rights should be covered in the informed consent procedures that were carried out."
From the 08 assessors report for this question..
I thought confidentiality and informed consent were two different things, but don't quote me on that.

[Glockmeister]

Oh Confidentiality and Informed consent are two completely different things.

Informed consent is where a person gives you permission to do the experiment. This is essential in experimentation for obvious reasons.

Confidentiality is the principle that only those conducting the experiment should have access to data given to you by the participant.

[sillysmile]

yep, the participants were coerced into participating, which indicates a breach of voluntary participation.