CEAC Research Methods & Evidence-Based Practice 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Which of the following best describes a prospective cohort study in the context of accessibility research?
- Participants are studied after an outcome has already occurred
- Participants are followed forward in time to observe outcomes after exposure (Correct answer)
- Participants are randomly assigned to receive an accessibility modification
- A single individual is studied in depth over time
Correct answer: Participants are followed forward in time to observe outcomes after exposure
Prospective cohort studies follow participants forward from exposure to outcome, allowing observation of incidence and temporal relationships.
Question 2: What does a high inter-rater reliability score indicate in an accessibility assessment tool?
- The tool measures the same construct over multiple time points consistently
- Different evaluators using the tool produce consistent results (Correct answer)
- The tool accurately reflects the true accessibility barriers present
- The tool has been validated in diverse populations
Correct answer: Different evaluators using the tool produce consistent results
Inter-rater reliability measures the degree to which different assessors produce the same scores using the same tool.
Question 3: When a research study reports a 95% confidence interval that does not include zero for an accessibility intervention effect, this means:
- The result is practically significant
- The result is statistically significant at the 0.05 level (Correct answer)
- The sample size was adequate
- The study had high external validity
Correct answer: The result is statistically significant at the 0.05 level
A 95% CI excluding zero indicates the effect is statistically significant at alpha = 0.05, meaning the null hypothesis of no effect is rejected.
Question 4: A consultant wants to survey wheelchair users about barriers in a city's transit system. Which sampling method would yield the most representative results?
- Convenience sampling at one transit station
- Snowball sampling through disability advocacy groups
- Stratified random sampling by transit zone and disability type (Correct answer)
- Purposive sampling of the most vocal advocates
Correct answer: Stratified random sampling by transit zone and disability type
Stratified random sampling ensures proportional representation across subgroups, reducing bias and improving generalizability.
Question 5: Which hierarchy of evidence places expert opinion at which level?
- Highest level because experts have the most experience
- Lowest level because it is most prone to bias (Correct answer)
- Middle level alongside cohort studies
- Equal to randomized controlled trials
Correct answer: Lowest level because it is most prone to bias
Evidence hierarchies place expert opinion at the lowest level due to susceptibility to bias and lack of systematic methodology.
Question 6: A CEAC professional is evaluating whether a new bathroom modification protocol reduces fall risk. Which outcome measure would be most objective?
- Patient satisfaction ratings
- Clinician perception of improvement
- Prospectively recorded fall incident logs (Correct answer)
- Participant self-report of feeling safer
Correct answer: Prospectively recorded fall incident logs
Prospectively recorded fall incident logs provide objective, verifiable data not subject to recall bias or subjective interpretation.
Question 7: In a mixed-methods accessibility study, when would qualitative data be most valuable?
- To establish statistical significance of outcomes
- To explain the 'why' behind quantitative findings (Correct answer)
- To replace the need for a control group
- To increase the sample size of the study
Correct answer: To explain the 'why' behind quantitative findings
Qualitative data provides contextual understanding and explores the reasons, experiences, and meanings behind quantitative results.
CEAC Research Methods & Evidence-Based Practice 3
Which of the following best describes a prospective cohort study in the context of accessibility research?