Perhaps you have heard the expression "Garbage in, garbage out" (GIGO). GIGO is used it to highlight the fact that data that start out faulty are not fixed by running them through a computer. An experimental study to determine the effectiveness of an integrated case management program for children with multiple agency involvement is a good illustration of GIGO.

A researcher reported that 12 months into the study all 11 girls in the control group were pregnant compared to none in the intervention group. When presenting that finding to a group of stakeholders, the results suddenly struck the researcher as odd. What were the chances that 100% of the girls in one group would be pregnant? When the researcher checked the original data, she found that the results were indeed false due to errors that had been made in coding. In this case, "pregnant" was coded as "1" but "1" was labeled "not pregnant" in the computer program. In reality, none of the girls in the control group was pregnanta very different story than what she had presented.

The moral of this unfortunate story is that databases almost always have errors: errors in recording, coding, and data entry. Researchers must take time to verify the data before analysis, not only to avoid drawing erroneous, embarrassing, and even damaging conclusions, but also because they have an ethical responsibility to ensure that their research is accurate.

Question: Read the "Case-in-point: Coding errors produce false picture of girls' pregnancies," above. Then, identify and explain the four steps data verification (Ordering the data, Examining the data graphically, Recoding data, Computing scales by combining multiple variables). Using the Christian worldview, explain how you would ethically respond to this scenario in the moment and what you would say to the stakeholders.