Passage
Twenty-two adults (mean age 49.5) were recruited to participate in a study they were told was to assess beliefs about cancer risk. All participants were in good health; neither they nor any first-degree relatives had been diagnosed with cancer.In the first phase of the study, participants viewed a brief video about the epidemiology and prevalence of cancer in the United States, and then were randomly assigned to one of four groups and asked to estimate the probability that they would develop cancer in their lifetimes. Group 1 consisted of seven study participants who each arrived at their estimates independently and without discussion. Group 2 consisted of seven study participants who were asked to agree on a group estimate after discussion (with unlimited time) . Group 3 contained seven members who were also asked to arrive at a consensus estimate after discussion (with unlimited time) : Six were study participants and the seventh was a confederate who suggested a very low estimate. Group 4 likewise contained seven members: Two were study participants and the other five were confederates who each suggested low estimates. Group 4 members were limited to 5 minutes of discussion and then asked to arrive at individual estimates.For the second phase of the study, four members of Group 1 who arrived at independent estimates of 20% or lower were put into a new group (Group 5) , then were given unlimited time to discuss their initial estimates and arrive at a group estimate (Table 1) .Table 1 Group Composition, Protocol, and Estimate of Developing Cancer in One's Lifetime
S. E. Asch ©1956 American Psychological Association.
-If this study is repeated using the same procedure with a different set of subjects and produces similar results, this suggests that the study is:

Question

Passage
Twenty-two adults (mean age 49.5) were recruited to participate in a study they were told was to assess beliefs about cancer risk. All participants were in good health; neither they nor any first-degree relatives had been diagnosed with cancer.In the first phase of the study, participants viewed a brief video about the epidemiology and prevalence of cancer in the United States, and then were randomly assigned to one of four groups and asked to estimate the probability that they would develop cancer in their lifetimes. Group 1 consisted of seven study participants who each arrived at their estimates independently and without discussion. Group 2 consisted of seven study participants who were asked to agree on a group estimate after discussion (with unlimited time) . Group 3 contained seven members who were also asked to arrive at a consensus estimate after discussion (with unlimited time) : Six were study participants and the seventh was a confederate who suggested a very low estimate. Group 4 likewise contained seven members: Two were study participants and the other five were confederates who each suggested low estimates. Group 4 members were limited to 5 minutes of discussion and then asked to arrive at individual estimates.For the second phase of the study, four members of Group 1 who arrived at independent estimates of 20% or lower were put into a new group (Group 5) , then were given unlimited time to discuss their initial estimates and arrive at a group estimate (Table 1) .Table 1 Group Composition, Protocol, and Estimate of Developing Cancer in One's Lifetime

S. E. Asch ©1956 American Psychological Association.
-If this study is repeated using the same procedure with a different set of subjects and produces similar results, this suggests that the study is:

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

11ecba2d_0cbb_037c_a3bf_03c646e3cede_MD0008_00 A variety of criteria are used to judge the extent to which scientific findings are credible (ie, can be trusted or believed). Major criteria include reliability, validity, and neutrality. Reliability refers to the consistency of an experiment or measure. Reliable measures produce similar results every time. For example, two official MCATs taken by the same person on consecutive days should produce similar scores. If the scores differ dramatically, this would be considered an unreliable test. Similarly, if a study is well designed, it should produce similar results when repeated with new subjects. This is an indication that an experimental design is highly reliable, also referred to as replicability, or reproducibility. (Choice B) Validity can be internal or external. Internal validity refers to the extent to which an experiment or measure is accurate (ie, produces a true result). For example, a broken scale might consistently show your weight as 10 pounds lighter, which would be consistent (reliable) but not accurate (valid). (Choice C) External validity, also known as generalizability, is the extent to which study results can be applied outside the laboratory to real-life situations. Experiments where all of the variables are tightly controlled may have a high degree of reliability and internal validity but not be very generalizable to the real world. (Choice D) Neutrality refers to the extent to which an experiment is objective, unbiased, and detached from the researcher's expectations. Neutrality implies that the results are legitimate and trustworthy. Complete neutrality is impossible, but steps are often taken to make research as neutral as possible. For example, a double-blind procedure means that neither the subjects nor the researcher knows who is receiving the treatment tested. Educational objective: Reliability describes the degree to which a measure is consistent (eg, a similar score for a person who takes the same assessment twice). Reliability also describes the extent to which an experiment is replicable or reproducible (ie, repeating the experiment produces similar results).

Passage Twenty-Two Adults (Mean Age 49.5) Were Recruited to Participate in in a Study