Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

FIELDS METHOD IN PSYCHOLOGY > MIDTERM > Flashcards

MIDTERM Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

less focused research question, collect large amounts of relatively “unfiltered” data from a relatively small number of individuals

A

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

describe their data using non-statistical techniques.

A

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

help researchers to generate new and interesting research questions and hypotheses.

A

PURPOSE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

provide rich and detailed descriptions of human behavior in the real-world contexts in which it occurs.

A

PURPOSE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

convey a sense of what it is actually like to be a member of a particular group or in a particular situation

A

PURPOSE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

“lived experience” of the research participants

A

PURPOSE OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

qualitative research tend to be unstructured

A

INTERVIEW

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

consisting of a small number of general questions or prompts that allow participants to talk about what is of interest to them.

A

INTERVIEW

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

researcher can follow up by asking more detailed questions about the topics that do come up.

A

INTERVIEW

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Small groups of people who participate
together in interviews focused on a
particular topic or issue.

A

FOCUS GROUP

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

The interaction among participants in a
focus group can sometimes bring out information than can be learned in a one-on- one interview.

A

FOCUS GROUP

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Researchers become active participants
in the group or situation they are
studying.

A

PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

The data they collect can include interviews (usually unstructured), their own notes based on their observations and interactions, documents, photographs, and other artifacts.

A

PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

start with the data and develop a theory or an interpretation that is ―grounded in‖ those data.

A

GROUNDED THEORY

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

the 3 ground theory stages

A
  1. Identify ideas that are repeated throughout the data.
  2. Organize these ideas into a smaller number of broader themes.
  3. Write a theoretical narrative—an interpretation—of the data in terms of the themes that they have identified.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Experimental research strategy establishes the existence of a cause-and- effect relationship between two variables.

A

CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

To accomplish this goal, an experiment manipulates one variable while a second variable is measured and other variables are controlled.

A

CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Experiment or a true experiment attempts to show that changes in one variable are directly responsible for changes in a second variable.

A

CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

4 basic of elements

A
  • manipulation
  • measurement
  • comparison
  • control
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

one variable by changing its value to create a set of two or more treatment conditions.

A

MANIPULATION

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

second variable is measured for a group of participants to obtain a set of scores in each treatment condition.

A

MEASUREMENT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

scores in one treatment condition are compared with the scores in another treatment condition.

A

COMPARISON

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

All other variables are controlled to be sure that they do not influence the two variables being examined.

A

CONTROL

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

All other variables are controlled to be sure that they do not influence the two variables being examined.

A

CONTROL

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

variable manipulated by the researcher.

A

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

situation or environment characterized by one specific value of the manipulated variable.

A

TREATMENT CONDITION

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

different values of the independent variable selected to create and define the treatment conditions.

A

LEVEL

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

different values of the independent variable selected to create and define the treatment conditions.

A

DEPENDENT VARIABLE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

all variables in the study other than the independent and dependent variables.

A

EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

One problem for experimental research is that variables rarely exist in isolation.

A

Causation & the Third-Variable Problem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

A study may establish that two variables are related, it does not necessarily mean that there is a direct (causal) relationship between the two variables.

A

Causation & the Third-Variable Problem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

research study may establish a relationship between two variables, the existence of a relationship does not always explain the direction of the relationship.

A

Causation & the Directionality Problem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

To establish a cause-and-effect relationship, an experiment must control nature

A

Controlling Nature

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

creating an unnatural situation wherein the two variables being examined are isolated from the influence of other variables

A

Controlling Nature

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

exact character of a relationship can be seen clearly.

A

CONTROLLING NATURE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Consists of identifying the specific
values of the independent variable to be examined

A

Manipulation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

creating a set of treatment conditions corresponding to the set of identified values.

A

MANIPULATION

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Simply observing that a relationship exists does not explain the relationship

A

Manipulation and the Directionality Problem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

certainly does not identify the direction of the relationship.

A

Manipulation and the Directionality Problem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

help researchers control the influence of outside variables

A

Manipulation and the Third-Variable Problem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

the existence of a relationship does not necessarily mean that there is a direct connection between the two variables.

A

Manipulation and the Third-Variable Problem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

The particular concern is to identify and control any third variable that changes systematically along with the independent variable

A

Control and the Third-Variable Problem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

potential to influence the dependent
variable

A

Control and the Third-Variable Problem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

housands of potentially confounding variables, however, the problem of controlling (or even monitoring) every extraneous variable appears insurmountable.

A

Extraneous Variables and Confounding Variables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

standardizing the environment and
procedures, most environmental
variables can be held constant.

A

Holding a Variable Constant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

eliminates its potential to become a confounding
variable.

A

Holding a Variable Constant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Control over an extraneous variable can also be exercised by matching the levels of the variable across treatment conditions.

A

Matching Values across Treatment Conditions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

use of a random process to help avoid a systematic relationship between two variables.

A

Randomization

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

use of a random process to assign participants to treatment conditions.

A

Random assignment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

goal of an experiment is to show that the scores obtained in one treatment condition are consistently different from the scores in another treatment and that the differences are caused by the treatments.

A

Comparing Methods of Control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

The two active methods of control (holding constant and matching) require some extra effort or extra measurement

A

Advantages & Disadvantages of Control Methods

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

typically used with only one or two specific variables identified as real threats for confounding

A

Advantages & Disadvantages of Control Methods

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

condition in which the treatment is
administered

A

Experimental condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

condition in which the treatment is not administered.

A

Control condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

condition in which the participants do not receive the treatment being evaluated.

A

No -Treatment Control Conditions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

inert or innocuous medication, a fake medical treatment

A

Placebo

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

absolutely no medicinal effect, but produces a positive or helpful effect simply

A

placebo

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

individual expects or believes it will
happen.

A

placebo

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

positive response by a participant to an inert medication that has no real effect on the body.

A

PLACEBO EFFECT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

thinks the medication is effective.

A

PLACEBO EFFECT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

participants receive a placebo instead of the actual treatment.

A

Placebo control condition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

measure to assess how the participants perceived and interpreted the manipulation and/or to assess the direct effect of the manipulation.

A

MANIPULATION CHECK

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

4 situations of manipulation check

A

Participant Manipulations.
Subtle Manipulations.
Placebo Controls.
Simulations.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

creation of conditions within an experiment that simulate or closely duplicate the natural environment in which the behaviors being examined would normally occur.

A

simulation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

Research conducted in a place that the
participant or subject perceives as a natural environment.

A

field studies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

allow researchers to investigate behavior in more lifelike situations and, therefore, should increase the chances that the experimental results accurately reflect natural events.

A

advantage of simulation and field studies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

allowing nature to intrude on an experiment means that the researcher often loses some control over the situation and risks compromising the internal validity of the experiment.

A

disadvantage of simulation and field studies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

compares different groups of individuals.

A

characteristics of between subjects design

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

requires a separate, independent group of individuals for each treatment condition.

A

Between-subjects experimental design

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

between-subjects design allows only one score for each participant. Every individual score represents a separate, unique participant.

A

Independent Scores

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

individual score is independent from the other scores

A

advantage of between subject designs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

require a relatively large number of participants.

A

Disadvantages of Between- Subjects Designs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

personal characteristics that differ from one participant to another

A

individual differences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

between-subjects design must also be concerned with threats to internal validity from environmental variables that can change systematically from one treatment to another

A

other confounding variables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

participant characteristics that can differ from one participant to another.

A

confounding from individual differences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

Environmental variables are any characteristics of the environment that may differ.

A

confounding from environmental variables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

both the opportunity and the responsibility to create groups that are equivalent.

A

equivalent groups

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

process used to obtain participants should be as similar as possible for all of the groups.

A

created equally

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
79
Q

Except for the treatment conditions that are deliberately varied between groups, the groups of participants should receive exactly the same experiences.

A

treated equally

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
80
Q

characteristics of the participants in any one group should be as similar as possible to the characteristics of the participants in every other group.

A

Composed of equivalent individuals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
81
Q

process is used to assign participants to groups.

A

random assignments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
82
Q

goal is to ensure that all individuals have the same chance of being assigned to a group.

A

random assignments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
83
Q

group assignment process is limited to ensure predetermined characteristics (such as equal size) for the separate groups.

A

restricted random assignments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
84
Q

involves assigning individuals to groups so that a specific participant variable is balanced, or matched, across the groups.

A

matching

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
85
Q

The intent is to create groups that are equivalent (or nearly equivalent) with respect to the variable matched.

A

matching

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
86
Q

method of preventing individual differences from becoming confounding variables is simply to hold the variable constant.

A

range of variability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
87
Q

An alternative to holding a variable completely constant is to restrict its range of values.

A

range of variability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
88
Q

good because they provide evidence of differential treatment effects.

A

differences between treatments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
89
Q

bad because the differences that exist inside the treatment conditions determine the variance of the scores

A

differences within treatments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
90
Q

All participants within a group should be treated exactly the same

A

Standardize Procedures and Treatment Setting

91
Q

Researchers should avoid making any changes in the treatment setting or the procedures used from one individual to another.

A

Standardize Procedures and Treatment Setting

92
Q

Holding a participant variable constant or restricting its range could be effective techniques used for limiting confounding from individual differences

A

limit individual differences

93
Q

4 Minimizing Variance within Treatments

A
  1. Standardize Procedures and Treatment Setting
  2. Limit Individual Differences
  3. Random Assignment and Matching
  4. Sample Size
94
Q

participant withdrawal from a research study before it is completed.

A

attrition

95
Q

rates from one group to another and can threaten the internal validity of a between-subjects experiment.

A

differential attritions

96
Q

Whenever the participants in one treatment condition are allowed to talk with the participants in another condition, there is the potential for a variety of problems to develop

A

communication between groups

97
Q

spread of the treatment from the experimental group to the control group, which tends to reduce the difference between the two conditions.

A

diffusion

98
Q

Another risk is that an untreated group learns about the treatment being received by the other group and demands the same or equal treatment.

A

Compensatory equalization

99
Q

untreated group works extra hard to show that they can perform just as well as the individuals receiving the special treatment.

A

Compensatory rivalry

100
Q

participants in an untreated group simply give up when they learn that another group is receiving special treatment

A

Resentful demoralization

101
Q

the simplest version of a between- subjects experimental design involves comparing only two groups of participants.

A

Single-factor two-group design (two- group design)

102
Q

The researcher manipulates one independent variable with only two levels.

A

Single-factor two-group design (two- group design)

103
Q

use this design with more than two groups to evaluate the functional relation between an independent and a dependent variable or to include several different control groups in a single study.

A

Single-factor multiple-group design

104
Q

compares two or more different treatment conditions (or compares a treatment and a control) by observing or measuring the same group of individuals in all of the treatment conditions being compared.

A

Within-subjects experimental design or repeated- measures experimental design

105
Q

looks for differences between treatment conditions within the same group of participants.

A

within subjects design

106
Q

Environmental variables are characteristics of the environment that may change from one treatment condition to another.

A

Confounding from environmental variables

107
Q

This design comes from the fact that the design often requires a series of measurements made over time.

A

Confounding from time-related variables.

108
Q

environmental events other than the treatment that change over time and may affect the scores in one treatment differently than in another treatment.

A

history

109
Q

When a group of individuals is being tested in a series of treatment conditions, any physiological or psychological change that occurs in participants during the study and influences the participants’ scores.

A

maturation

110
Q

Changes in the measuring instrument that occurs during a research study in which participants are measured in a series of treatment conditions.

A

instrumentation

111
Q

environmental events other than the treatment that change over time and may affect the scores in one treatment differently than in another treatment.

A

Statistical regression (regression toward the mean)

112
Q

when the experience of being tested in one treatment condition (participating and being measured) has an influence on the participants’ scores in a later treatment condition(s).

A

order effects

113
Q

(progressive decline in performance as a participant works through a series of treatment conditions)

A

fatigue effects

114
Q

(progressive improvement in performance as a participant gains experience through the series of treatment condition).

A

practice effect

115
Q

(progressive improvement in performance as a participant gains experience through the series of treatment condition).

A

carry over effects

116
Q

subjective perception of a treatment condition is influenced by its contrast with the previous treatment.

A

Contrast effect

117
Q

changes in a participant’s behavior or performance that are related to general experience in a research study but not related to a specific treatment or treatments.

A

Progressive error

118
Q

produce changes in the scores from one treatment condition to another that are not caused by the treatments and can confound the results of a research study.

A

order effects as a confounding variables

119
Q

Within-subjects designs can control environmental threats to internal validity using the same techniques that are used in between- subjects designs.

A

order effects as a confounding variables

120
Q

order effects as a confounding variables controlled by

A
  1. Randomization
  2. holding them constant
  3. matching across treatment conditions
121
Q

one treatment condition to the next, a researcher has some control over time- related threats to internal validity.

A

controlling time

122
Q

shortening the time between treatments can reduce the risk of time-related threats

A

controlling time

123
Q

this technique can often increase the likelihood that order effects will influence the results.

A

controlling time

124
Q

order effects are so strong and so obvious that a researcher probably would not even consider using a within-subjects design.

A

Switch to a Between-Subjects Design

125
Q

A between-subjects design (with a separate group for each treatment) is available as an alternative and completely eliminates any threat of confounding from order effects.

A

switch to a between subjects design

126
Q

changing the order in which treatment conditions are administered from one participant to another so that the treatment conditions are matched with respect to time.

A

counterbalancing

127
Q

purpose of counterbalancing is to eliminate the potential for confounding by disrupting any systematic relationship between the order of treatments and time-related factors.

A

Counterbalancing: Matching Treatments with Respect to Time

128
Q

distribute order effects evenly across the different treatment conditions. However, this process does not eliminate the order effects.

A

coubterbalancing and variance

129
Q

A more serious problem is that counterbalancing adds the order effects to some of the individuals within each treatment but not to all of the individuals.

A

counterbalancing and variance

130
Q

order effects are relatively large, the process of counterbalancing can undermine the potential for a successful experiment.

A

counterbalancing and variance

131
Q

One treatment might produce more of an order effect than another treatment.

A

asymmetrical order effects

132
Q

order effects are not symmetrical and counterbalancing the order of treatments does not balance the order effects.

A

asymmetrical order effects

133
Q

The idea behind complete counterbalancing is that a particular series of treatment conditions may create its own unique order effect.

A

Counterbalancing and the Number of Treatments

134
Q

One solution to this problem is to use partial counterbalancing.

A

Counterbalancing and the Number of Treatments

135
Q

uses enough different orderings to ensure that each treatment condition occurs first in the sequence for one group of participants, occurs second for another group, third for another group, and so on.

A

partial counterbalancing

136
Q

requires relatively few participants in comparison to between-subjects designs

A

Advantages of Within-Subjects Designs

137
Q

no individual differences between groups because there is only one group of participants

A

Advantages of Within-Subjects Designs

138
Q

each participant appears in every treatment condition, each individual serves as his own control or baseline.

A

Advantages of Within-Subjects Designs

139
Q

In statistical terms, a within-subjects design is generally more powerful than a between- subjects design.

A

Advantages of Within-Subjects Designs

140
Q

Each participant often goes through a series of treatment conditions, with each treatment administered at a different time.

A

Disadvantages of Within-Subjects Designs

141
Q

individuals who start the research study may be gone before the study is completed

A

Participant attrition

142
Q

Each individual in one group is matched with a participant in each of the other groups.

A

Matched-Subjects Designs

143
Q

The matching is done so that the matched individuals are equivalent with respect to a variable that the researcher considers to be relevant to the study.

A

Matched-Subjects Designs

144
Q

many of the same advantages and disadvantages as the two-group between-subjects design.

A

Two-Treatment Designs

145
Q

Design is easy to conduct and the results are easy to understand.

A

positive of two treatment design

146
Q

It is very easy to counterbalance the design to minimize the threat of confounding from time- related factors or order effects.

A

positive of two treatment design

147
Q

Study with only two treatments provides only two data points.

A

Negative of two treatment design

148
Q

The data are more likely to reveal the functional relationship between the two variables being studied

A

Multiple-Treatment Designs Advantage

149
Q

Produces a more convincing demonstration of a cause-and-effect relationship than is provided by a two-treatment design.

A

Advantage of Multiple-Treatment Designs

150
Q

If a researcher creates too many treatment conditions, the distinction between treatments may become too small to generate significant differences in behavior.

A

Disadvantage of multiple treatment design

151
Q

Multiple treatments for a within-subjects design typically increase the amount of time required for each participant to complete the full series of treatments increasing the likelihood of participant attrition.

A

Disadvantage of multiple treatment design

152
Q

Typically involve comparison of scores from different groups or different conditions

A

Nonexperimental and Quasi-Experimental Research Strategies

153
Q

two strategies use a non-manipulated variable to define the groups or conditions being compared

A

Nonexperimental and Quasi-Experimental Research Strategies

154
Q

make little or no attempt to control threats to internal validity

A

nonexperimental designs

155
Q

actively attempt to limit threats to internal validity.

A

quasi-experimental designs

156
Q

Between-subjects designs, also known as

A

nonequivalent group designs

157
Q

Within-subjects designs, also known as

A

pre-post designs

158
Q

Compares preexisting groups of individuals

A

Between-Subjects Designs

159
Q

Examples of Between-Subjects Designs

A

o Differentialresearch
o Posttest-only non-equivalent
o control group design
o Pretest–posttest non
o Equivalent control group
o Design
o Cross-sectional

160
Q

Compares two or more scores for one
group of participants

A

Within-Subjects Designs

161
Q

Examples of Within-Subjects Designs

A

o Pretest–posttest design
o Time-series design
o Longitudinal
o Developmental design

162
Q

A research study in which the different groups of participants are formed under circumstances that do not permit the researcher to control the assignment of individuals to groups, and the groups of participants are, therefore, considered nonequivalent.

A

Non Equivalent Group Design

163
Q

the researcher cannot use random assignment to create groups of participants.

A

Non Equivalent Group Design

164
Q

Individual differences between groups that individual differences create a confound whenever the assignment procedure produces groups that have different participant characteristics.

A

Threats to Internal Validity for Nonequivalent Group Designs

165
Q

A research study that simply compares
preexisting groups.

A

The Differential Research Design

166
Q

A differential study uses a participant
characteristic such as gender, race, or personality
to automatically assign participants to groups.

A

The Differential Research Design

167
Q

classified as a nonexperimental research design.

A

Differential Research

168
Q

compares two non-equivalent groups

A

Pretest–Posttest Nonequivalent Control Group Design

169
Q

One group is measured twice, once before a treatment is administered and once after. The other group is measured at the same two times
but does not receive any treatment.

A

Pretest–Posttest Nonequivalent Control Group Design

170
Q

classified as quasi-experimental.

A

Pretest–Posttest Nonequivalent Control Group Design

171
Q

research study in which a series of observations is made over time for one group of participants.

A

Pre–post design

172
Q

Threats to internal validity for pre-post designs

A
  1. History
  2. Instrumentation
  3. Order effects
  4. Maturation
  5. Statistical regression
173
Q

used to examine changes in behavior related to age.

A

Developmental research designs

174
Q

The different groups are measured at one point in time and then compared.

A

Cross-Sectional Developmental Research Design

175
Q

Uses different groups of individuals, each group representing a different age.

A

Cross-Sectional Developmental Research Design

176
Q

individuals who were born at roughly the same time and grew up under similar circumstances.

A

cohort

177
Q

differences between age groups (or cohorts) caused by unique characteristics or experiences other than age.

A

cohort effects and generation effects

178
Q

Examines development by observing or measuring a group of cohorts over time.

A

Longitudinal Developmental Research Design

179
Q

The absence of cohort effects because the researcher examines one group of people over time rather than comparing groups that represent different ages and come from different
generations.

A

Strengths of the Longitudinal Developmental Design

180
Q

researcher can discuss how a single
individual’s behavior changes with age.

A

Strengths of the Longitudinal Developmental Design

181
Q

Extremely time-consuming, both for the participants and the researcher

A

Weakness of the Longitudinal Developmental Design

182
Q

designs are very expensive to conduct because researchers need to track people down and persuade them

A

Weakness of the Longitudinal Developmental Design

183
Q

high dropout rates of participants

A

Weakness of the Longitudinal Developmental Design

184
Q

data consist of numerical scores, and then the appropriate statistical analysis is a two- factor, mixed design analysis of variance (the pre–post factor is within-subjects and the group factor is between-subjects).

A

The Pretest–Posttest Nonequivalent Control Group Design

185
Q

used to differentiate the groups of participants or the groups of scores being compared

A

Quasi-independent variable

186
Q

The variable that is measured to obtain the scores within each group.

A

Dependent variable

187
Q

independent variable in an experiment, especially those that include two or more independent variables.

A

factor

188
Q

research design that includes two or more factors.

A

factorial design

189
Q

notation system that identifies both the number of factors and the number of values or levels that exist for each factor

A

factorial design

190
Q

mean differences among the levels of one factor

A

main effect

191
Q

research study is represented as a matrix with one factor defining the rows and the second factor defining the columns

A

main effect

192
Q

Occurs whenever two factors, acting together, produce mean differences that are not explained by the main effects of the two factors.

A

Interaction between factors (interaction)

193
Q

exists between the factors when the effects of one factor depend on the different levels of a second factor.

A

interactions

194
Q

When the results of a two-factor study are graphed, the existence of nonparallel lines (lines that cross or converge) is an indication of an interaction between the two factors.

A

interaction

195
Q

data matrix, you must compare the mean in any individual row (or column) with the mean differences in other rows or columns.

A

identifying interactions

196
Q

data are evaluated by a hypothesis test, be cautious about interpreting any results from a two-factor study.

A

Interpreting main effects and interactions

197
Q

presence of an interaction can obscure or distort the main effects of either factor.

A

Interpreting main effects and interactions

198
Q

Whenever a statistical analysis produces a significant interaction, you should take a close look at the data before giving any credibility to the main effects.

A

Interpreting main effects and interactions

199
Q

Two-factor study allows researchers to evaluate

A

Independence of Main Effects and Interactions

200
Q

They are best suited to situations in which a lot of participants are available, individual differences are relatively small, and order effects are likely

A

Between subject designs

201
Q

A study in which there is a separate group of participants for each of the treatment conditions.

A

Between subject designs

202
Q

A single group of individuals participates in all of the separate treatment conditions.

A

Within subject designs

203
Q

They are best suited for situations in which individual differences are relatively large, and there is little reason to expect order effects to be large and disruptive

A

Within subject designs

204
Q

factorial study that combines two different research designs.

A

mixed design

205
Q

factorial study with one between-subjects factor and one within-subjects factor

A

mixed design

206
Q

uses two different research strategies in the same factorial design.

A

Combined Strategies study

207
Q

One factor is a true independent variable (experimental strategy)

A

experimental strategy

208
Q

one factor is a quasi- independent variable

A

nonexperimental or quasi- experimental strategy

209
Q

measured before and after receiving a treatment.

A

one group - treatment group

210
Q

measured twice (pretest and posttest) but does not receive any treatment between the two measurements.

A

second group - control group

211
Q

researcher has control over assignment of participants to groups and can create equivalent groups.

A

random assignment

212
Q

basic concepts of a two-factor research design can be extended to more complex designs involving three or more factors

A

Higher order factorial designs

213
Q

statistical evaluation of the results from a factorial study depends in part on whether the factors are between-subjects, within-subjects, or some mixture of between-subjects and within- subjects.

A

Statistical analysis of factorial designs

214
Q

Conducts three separate hypothesis tests: one each to evaluate the two main effects and one to evaluate the interaction.

A

Two factor ANOVA

215
Q

Usually conducted using a statistical computer program such as SPSS.

A

Two factor ANOVA

216
Q

the correct choice is an independent- measures two-factor ANOVA

A

two between subject factors

217
Q

must specify which it is and use a mixed-design two-factor ANOVA

A

one of the two factors is between subjects

218
Q

use a repeated-measures two-factor ANOVA.

A

Two within-subjects factors

219
Q

Factorial designs are developed when researchers plan studies that are intended to build on previous research results.

A

Expanding and replicating a previous study

220
Q

current research tends to build on past research, factorial designs are fairly common and very useful.

A

Expanding and replicating a previous study

221
Q

simple fact that differences between participants can result in large variance for the scores within a treatment condition. Large variance can make it difficult to establish any significant differences between treatment conditions.

A

Reducing variance in between subjects designs

222
Q

tempting to eliminate or reduce the influence of the specific characteristic by holding it constant or by restricting its range.

A

Reducing variance in between subjects designs

223
Q

order effects can alter and distort the true effects of a treatment condition, they are generally considered a confounding variable that should be eliminated from the study

A

Evaluating order effect in within subjects designs

224
Q

It is possible to create a research design that actually measures the order effects and separates them from the rest of the data.

A

Evaluating order effect in within subjects designs

FIELDS METHOD IN PSYCHOLOGY (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions