chapt. 2 Characteristics of good research Flashcards
characteristics of good research
-made public
-can be replicated
-generalizability
-techniques used reduces bias
objective measurement
measurement of a variable that is consistent
variable
controlled object/concept
operational definitions
some variables can be defined in different ways: behaviour, physiology
sources of bias
people changing reactions based on how others will percieve them
characteristics of bad research
-anecdotal evidence: personal experiences
validity
tools used accurately measure what it’s supposed to
reliability
when a measure proves it provides consistant answers over different observations
hawthorne effect
behaviour effect when knowing they are being observed
correlational research
measuring degree of connection between multiple variables
controlled experiments
cause manipulated by researcher
randomized experiments
ensures no systemic differences
randomization
replicate studies to prove the same results each time
informed consent
volunteers fully informed + gives consent
deception
“white lie”, partially informs patient about true topic of study to target natural reaction
debriefing
fully explaining true study and reasons for deceptions after the study
anonymity
data cannot connect to individual
confidentiality
only experimenter knows the data
descriptive statistics
techniques used to summarize/collect data for the big picture
frequency
of observations that fall within a catagory
normal distribution
symmetrical distribution of data valuessk
skewed distribution
unexpected data
central tendancy
where scores cluster together
variability
which scores are dispensed in a a distribution
standard deviation
variability around the mean (average)
statistical significance
groups are farther apart than expected from random chance
null and experimental hypothesis’
null: differences= random chance
experimental: differences= experimenter
demand characteristics
researcher bias, cues from them that tell participants how they should behave
single-blind study
participants do not know true purpose of study
OR
do not know which treatment they will get
double-blind study
experimenter and researcher to not know which treatment for anyone
appeal to authority
believing an “experts” claim with no supporting data
expertise does not equal evidence
appeal to common sense
appears to be true, lacks supporting evidence
descriptive data
only from observations
qualitative research
using numerical measurements of the variables
random sampling
taking sample at random
random assignment
dividing samples so participants have an equal chance of how they are sortede
experimental group
provided special treatment
control group
no special treatment, used to compare to the natural
quasi-experimental group
pre-selected, not random