AAMC Scored test 2 error

[Bigloader2014]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi everybody. 1st time poster, long time lurker.

I am getting ready for my Jan test and I came across what looks like an error in the AAMC Scored Practice Test 2.

This is Psychology & Sociology Section, Passage 9, Question 52.

The explanation says the study was randomized (choice A), and goes on to elaborate about this. Yet, the passage text has NO mention of any randomization procedure AND the highlighted, designated-correct answer is C, Experimental, which makes sense to me.

Am I crazy or did someone at the AAMC screw up the explanation, passage text and correct answer highlighting.

Thank you in advance!

 

[andelJ94]

Bump, I have not taken this test yet but the question you posted looks screwy to me. Anyone who has taken it care to weigh in? I don't want to spoil it before my time but I would like to know if the AAMC screwed up before I keep using their products so much.

 

[aldol16]

You might get more responses if you posted an image of the actual passage. Most of us who have already taken it took it a while ago, before there was a second scored FL available. So we're not familiar with the passage and we don't have access to it.

 

[Bigloader2014]

You might get more responses if you posted an image of the actual passage. Most of us who have already taken it took it a while ago, before there was a second scored FL available. So we're not familiar with the passage and we don't have access to it.

See below. With this text anyone should be able to weigh in. I really think they messed up.



Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a disorder characterized by declining cognition and clinical symptoms such as increased fear and anxiety. AD symptoms are also associated with neuronal pathologies.

To better understand the underlying neuronal mechanisms mediating the clinical symptoms of AD, researchers used a mouse model of AD. Researchers conducted a study using control mice (non-modified genes) and genetically engineered mice (modified genes) with altered expression of the genes coding for the p-amyloid (A13) and neurofibrillary tangle (NFT) proteins. Mice were administered either saline (control) or encenicline, an acetylcholine agonist.

Freezing behavior, which is induced by fear and defined as a complete cessation of all movement, was measured in mice. A fear conditioning paradigm was used whereby in the first phase, foot shock, which induces fear in mice, was paired with a bright light for many trials. In the second stage, only the light stimulus was presented, which induced fear, and the percentage of time spent freezing was measured. Results are shown in Figure 1.


The percentage of time spent freezing in control and genetically modified mice treated with saline or encenicline (Note: An asterisk indicates a significant difference from the other group as shown.)

Spatial working memory was also tested, and results indicated that, overall, genetically modified mice performed significantly more poorly on the task compared to control mice. Researchers then measured the expression levels of Ali and NFT in the amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex, brain regions known to regulate fear and memory processing.


That is all there is. This explanation makes no sense. I do think the answer is C though. I reached out to the AAMC almost 6 days ago but have not heard back.

 

[aldol16]

The explanation that you posted an image of in your original post says the answer is C. Which is correct. So I don't see the problem here.

 

[Bigloader2014]

Thanks for the interest @aldol16 but really? You don't see ANY disconnect between the Q explanation I posted (the image), the correct answer, and the passage text.

Sometimes people here really don't seem to pay attention to detail. I would suggest you have another, closer look at that image. The Q explanation says the mice were randomly assigned to their group. Would that not make the answer A?

However, I see NO mention of randomization in the passage text so I went with C, which they say is correct.

I would wager this is a mistake, unless random assignment to experimental/treatment groups somehow does not qualify a study to be called randomized. is there some subtlety of calling a study randomized I am missing? Can anyone else with lab/publishing experience weigh in?

 

[aldol16]

Thanks for the interest @aldol16 but really? You don't see ANY disconnect between the Q explanation I posted (the image), the correct answer, and the passage text.

Sometimes people here really don't seem to pay attention to detail. I would suggest you have another, closer look at that image. The Q explanation says the mice were randomly assigned to their group. Would that not make the answer A?

However, I see NO mention of randomization in the passage text so I went with C, which they say is correct.

I would wager this is a mistake, unless random assignment to experimental/treatment groups somehow does not qualify a study to be called randomized. is there some subtlety of calling a study randomized I am missing? Can anyone else with lab/publishing experience weigh in?

Sometimes people on here don't know how not to be an ass. "Randomized" isn't a type of research design at all so I don't see a problem. I would suggest you read up on what research designs are.

https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developmentresources/tutorials/researchdesigns

 

[Bigloader2014]

I was not trying to be an ass at all. Your post came of as dismissive and did not elaborate on anything you just said you see nothing wrong after saying seeing the passage was needed to address my question. This request doesn't make sense if half the answers are not considered a research design type at all. All one would have to say is that Randomized is not considered a research design. Something so simple I am surprised the AAMC doesn't explain it, which is what makes me wary of its veracity.

I can't imagine the turds you may deal with on SDN but you choose to post here so, so, so often I would have thought you would have thicker skin by now. I apologize for any offense given.

Is randomized really not considered a study design? Would if be fair to say controlled is not a study design either? How about Double-blind?

I found this https://himmelfarb.gwu.edu/tutorials/studydesign101/rcts.html

Is the site you cite https://cirt.gcu.edu/research/developmentresources/tutorials/researchdesigns an official reference for what constitutes design?

This site seems to list Randomized-control as a study design.
http://research.library.gsu.edu/c.php?g=115595&p=755213

Seems like semantics but I guess that is the nature of medicine, details matter.

Can anyone confirm that Randomized is not a research design at all?

Thanks all!

 

[aldol16]

I think the difficulty is in recognizing what is incidental to good research study design and what is a design paradigm at all. Those sites you cite are talking about randomized clinical trials. The research paradigm that is of importance here is the clinical trial part. The randomized part is incidental to the design. That is, any good research will randomize variables that it is not trying to measure so as to "smooth the landscape" so to speak, so that those other variables don't end up being confounding variables. So say you want to design a study that measures the effect of a drug on weight loss. The independent variable here is drug dose and dependent variable is weight loss. Now any good researcher will want to randomize other aspects of the subjects so that they don't become confounding. For instance, you would want to randomize who goes into the placebo group and who goes into the control group so that physician bias doesn't come into play. You might also want to do a double blind here for that reason.

But the point is, these experimental aspects aren't what characterizes the paradigm (i.e. clinical trial) but are rather incidental to it. They are like "red, crispy, tangy, sweet" are to "apple." They describe certain aspects of a particular paradigm but do not characterize it completely. So, in short, to apply a test to see whether something qualifies as a "research design," you should ask yourself if the word(s) itself tells you about the design of the experiment - the point where a competent researcher could do it. So if I said do a randomized study linking drug X with obesity, could you perform that experiment? Most people should say no. Because that doesn't tell you what to randomize, what kind of subjects you have, etc. Similarly, if I said do a double-blind study linking drug X with obesity, that doesn't tell you much about the research design itself. You could go to the lab and do a double-blinded trangenic mouse experimental study or you could go into the clinical and do a double-blinded clinical trial. But if I said "do a clinical trial linking drug X with obesity," then a competent researcher should be able to perform that experiment and he/she would also randomize the appropriate aspects of it too to make it good science.

Overall, a research design should tell you how to collect, measure, and analyze data. It's basically your blueprint for research. "Randomized" tells you how to collect certain types of data. It tells you nothing about how you're going to measure something, where you're going to measure it, or how you're generally going to analyze it.

Of course, others should feel free to weigh in if they can explain this better.