Aresearcher developed a questionnaire to assess impulsiveness among adults. in a journal article, she later presented evidence that college students tend to get essentially the same score if they take the test twice, two months apart. however, when a reader looks at the sample questionnaire items she included in the article, it seems that they relate more to whether a person is sociable, outgoing, and fun than to whether an individual is impulsive. in this situation, the reader is most likely to specifically question the of the researcher's questionnaire.

Which of the following is an example of cultural assimilation

Acriterion for waiving informed consent is that, when appropriate, subjects are provided additional pertinent information after the study. in which of the following studies would it not be appropriate to provide subjects with information about missing elements of consent: a study in which researchers told students that they would be given a quiz after reading some study materials when the researchers did not intend to use a quiz, but were attempting to focus subjects’ attention on the material.a study in which subjects were told that they performed in the third quartile on an anagram task when in reality students were randomly assigned scores that were not related to their actual performance.a study in which subjects were assigned to study activities based on an undesirable or unflattering physical characteristic as assessed by members of the research team.a study involving decision-making games in which subjects were led to believe that they were interacting with another student in another room, but were actually interacting with a computer programmed to provide consistent responses to all subjects.

Arthur met rottweiler breeders lynda and george at a dog show in rhode island. the couple, who reside in new york state, later sold several rottweiler dogs to arthur who lived in rhode island. arthur later sued lynda and george, claiming that the dogs were sick and infirm. he filed a complaint in rhode island courts, claiming that even though the dogs were sold in new york, the breeders had attended the dog show and advertised in the rottweiler newsletter which was distributed at the event in rhode island. based on the facts, do you think rhode island courts have personal jurisdiction in this case?