Question 1
- Some of the subjects for this study were Westat employees (Westat is a research firm that manages data for screening and treatment trials and other epidemiological studies). There were 12 participants from Westat. Study 1 had a total of 29 subjects and Study 2 had a total of 20 subjects; how the Westat employee subjects were distributed among the studies is unclear. While all subjects were paid for their participation, Westat employees received less than other outside participants. Both Westat and the National Cancer Institute’s IRBs approved this study and no conflict of interest was reported. Do you think it was appropriate to use employees of a research firm that is in the business of collecting data as subjects for this study? Why or why not?
posted by Alison Geyer @ 9:10 AM
26 comments
26 Comments:
Initially, I did not agree with the fact that the Westat staff chose to include some of their own employees within their study design. I did not think it would be appropriate based on the fact that these employees could have had previous exposure to the computer software program. Since the majority of the employees from the research firm probably spend the majority of their days in front of a computer screen, one would automatically expect them to be good with computers and so, when asking to partake in a study design involving computers, their answers may be more accurate because they would be able to focus their sole attention on the pictures presented and the questions being asked. As I began to think about the possible biases associated with the chosen participants, I began to think more critically about the question being asked. Not knowing the size of the firm or the number of employees working for Westat, I can not necessarily say that those involved knew anything about the actual study being conducted. For example, in any big corporation or organizational setting, many different departments exist and the focus could be solely on their area of expertise. In regards to this research study, the chosen Westat employees may very well have been uninformed about the actual study being conducted.
I think that anytime you do a study it is good to include a vast number of people. With that said it would be safe to make an assumption that including these employees as well as the other participants would give a nice variation of individuals to see the results from. It is my oppinion that when you are doing research you are looking for the differences in people and or variables. If you are including a group (as the employees were) you are gauranteeing a difference in the results from those individuals who were not employees.
Anna,
I agree that it was safe to make the assumption that the employees may have had some prior knowledge of the study but I am not sure that would have affected the outcome of the study anyway. There are a lot of studies where the participants are fully involved and the outcome is exactly what the researchers were looking for.
When I read this question, the first thing that popped into my mind was that these 12 employees may have prior knowledge of this study. While the amount of Westat employees is small compared to the total amount of participants involved, I think it could impact the results of the study. For example, perhaps the Westat employees involved did have not have prior experience or knowledge of the 24-hour recall screening as well as exposure to the photographs. Having said that, they are likely to be more experienced with computers and computer imaging than the other participants that do not work on a daily basis developing data for research studies on a computer. I do not think that it is necessarily a bad thing to involve them in the study, especially if they were short on participants, but it would be helpful to know if they had previous experience with that exact screening tool as well as how they were dispersed between the two studies (i.e. randomly assigned or all Westat workers in one study).
Anna,
You make a good point about how Westat employees spend the majority of their day in front of a computer and are involved with designing studies just like the electronic 24-hour recall. I cannot help but to think that their answers would be more accurate since they are used to developing applications and data for research on a computer. It may affect the results of this study, but probably not a very significant amount.
As it was, the sample was a convenience sample, with potential participants selected from an internal database of research volunteers. As such, certain innate weaknesses in the study design exist simply due to the lack of a random sample being used. Although I don’t think Westat staff involved with portion size programming would be considered as potential candidates for this study, I do believe there is a problem with the monetary incentive disparity between Westat staff and non-Westat staff participants. Although this disparity seems founded, as non-Westat staff have the additional inconvenience of travelling to the site of the study, there seems to be room for bias for those in charge of selecting the candidates for participation. Namely, although the study is funded by National Cancer Institute contracts, and participants with a range of demographic characteristics were to be selected, only so much money would be available and so it would be financially prudent for those in charge of selecting candidates to invite as many Westat staff as possible. This makes the sample very much a convenience sample, with the integrity of the candidate selection to rely very much on the integrity of those in charge of candidate selection. As humans are innately biased, this opportunity to consider financial incentive as a part of the selection process opens the door for additional opportunity for bias in participant selection, possibly drawing effort away from simply collecting the most appropriate sample possible and adding the incentive of saving money.
I believe that using the Westat staff members as subjects was not appropriate because they didn't provide enough information about them. They were working for the company that was in charge of the study and were being paid. While that fact alone doesn't prove that there is a conflict of interest, it is definitely suspicious. I think that the authors should have also provided a detailed description of WHY a conflict of interest was not found. Presenting some solid evidence as to why their employment did not effect the results of the study would be much more convincing.
I think that it COULD be inappropriate to use employees of a research firm as subjects because they might know how to sway the outcome of a study, but at the same time the employees especially understand the importance of true, ethical results because they work in a research environment on a daily basis. Therefore, they COULD be more inclined to prevent biases from occuring than random subjects pulled from the public would.
My initial thought was that this was not appropriate because it could potentially create a conflict of interest between Westat and their employees involved in the study. But after seeing that the study was approved by both the Westat and National Cancer Institute’s IRBs, I changed my mind. Having both IRB approvals may indicate that the way this study was conducted may have eliminated any conflicts of interest that could have possibly arisen. I feel that with further information about the subject’s selection process and the Westat employee’s previous knowledge of this specific study, I would be able to make a more educated judgment.
I agree with Jennifer. Using employees’ of Westat as subjects could be inappropriate or they may help to prevent bias due to their potential knowledge of ethical research studies. It is difficult to determine in this case whether or not the use of these employees’ was appropriate or not. The fact that IRB approval was obtained from both Westat and the National Cancer Institute makes me think that it may be more appropriate than inappropriate, but I do still think that more information would be necessary to accurately determine this.
Originally, I did not think it was appropriate to use employees of Westat as subjects for this study. It seems that there would be a large influence from these employees in this study. Seeing that the information regarding how these employees were distributed is lacking and there isn’t any conflict of interest reported, I don’t see how it would be an issue to use the Westat employees for this study. Although, I do feel it would have been useful to use less of these employees or increase the sample size of the study.
I think that it is appropriate to use employees from the research firm that is collecting the data as long as those participating in the study are not the same employees that are directly involved in running this particular study. The entire Westat research firm is likely working on more than one project at a time, and each and every employee is not likely to be working on all studies. Therefore, I think it is appropriate for those employees not directly involved in this particular study to be participants. That being said, it would have been nice if the Westat population did not make up such a large percentage of the subjects, whether that could have been done by not including so many of them or by increasing the number of subjects outside of the Westat firm.
Jenn,
I think you make a good point about how the Westat employees may be more likely to value the outcomes of the study than the general public since they work in research as their profession. I did not even think about that side of the argument, but their profession could definitely make them more willing to try to prevent biases in the study.
In general, I would say that it should have been considered a conflict of interest. Even if the employees were unaware of the program or the study, they worked for the company that was trying to benefit from the study so they should have been excluded. Even though I'm not sure if the employees knew anything about the study, because they had employees as subjects, I am slightly more skeptical of the results of the study.
Jenn-
I never thought about the fact that since some of the subjects worked for a research firm, they probably know how to keep from being bias in a study. Good thought!
With the amount of information provided about the actual study, I find it difficult to determine whether there was a conflict of interest and if it was appropriate to use Westat employees. Therefore, I am going to place my trust in both IRB boards and say that using Westat employees as subjects was convenient and appropriate in retrieving the sample the study was looking for. It seems from past classes that IRB boards are strict and precise when it comes to their decisions to approve research so I find it difficult to imagine both the Westat and National Cancer Institute being any different and letting inappropriate and bias studies be conducted.
Using some of Westat's own employees may have been convenient, but I believe ultimately inappropriate. However, there must have been precautions taken that were not explained, which allowed Westat and the IRB to deem that there was "no conflict of interest." More information on the employees used as participants in this study should have been given. The branch of the company that they work for, or their relationship to the study, may have a significant impact on the outcomes. I also found it interesting that they were actually paid less for their participation. Depending on how much less, this may have had an effect on the participant’s motivation in completing the tasks assigned.
I am somewhat torn on this topic. I feel as though having Westat employees as participants in the study seems to be a conflict of interest but if that is so obvious to me and I don't know that much about the study, then why did the 2 IRB boards approve the study? I have a feeling that the employees may just be a convienence sampling and that it isn't a conflict of interest but I really can't be sure until I know more about the study.
Bethany-
I see your point that since we do know so little about the study and the fact that it was approved by both IRB boards, that means it was most likely not a conflict of interest for those participants.
Upon learning this, I initially felt that it is inappropriate to include 12 Westat participants in the study, especially considering the low number of total participants. I agree with what others have said that these employees are most likely going to be more computer-savvy and that may affect the results of the study. Those employees may have had a direct hand in the programming of this software, which in my opinion would allow them to more successful at estimating correct portion sizes. It also makes me wonder whether the fact the Westat employees were being used as participants was known or not to the IRB board. I understand the importance of having a larger sample; however, I do not find this method to be the most conducive to valid and representative results
I agree with Shelby. A variety of participants is always beneficial. If the Westat participants were not aware of specific details that other participants were not informed about, I see no issue with including them. Sometimes research is convenient and this convenience is sometimes mistaken for biased.
I feel that using employees from Westat was an inappropriate selection of participants. The employees likely were familiar with the software program, and most definitely had experience using computers. The employees are probably not a representative sample of the larger population, because they are (most likely) more familiar with the research study, software program, and computers in general.
-Sarah Gervais
I personally find it hard to believe that they couldn't find enough people from the outside to test this program on. Since they didn't work in the same department, and didn't know anything about the study, I don't technically see an ethical issue or tainted data. I just find it incredibly lazy on their part.
I agree with you, Anna and Shelby, about since their jobs are involved in developing similar things, it is likely that their answers were more accurate, giving the program a more positive view. I didn't think about that factor and makes me dislike the fact that they used employees even more.
After reading everyone else’s opinion on the matter, I’m still torn with my own. I agree with Bethany that there must have been proper precautions taken in order for the study to be IRB-approved. However, I also found Shelby and Anna’s point that the employee’s jobs most likely involve similar tasks, an important issue to consider.
Kara,
I didn't think about the fact that the employees could be more successful at estimating correct portion sizes because they may have had a direct hand in the programming of the software. Again, the authors should have definitely been more specific as to why they did not consider the sample biased.
Post a Comment
<< Home