PERSONAL INVESTIGATION (STROOP) Flashcards
Co-variable 1
(state and operationalise)
driving experience (measured in years to the nearest full year)
co-variable 2
(state and operationalise)
cognitive processing abilities (measured as scores on a troop test)
operationalised experimental hypothesis
there will be a negative correlation between driving experience (in years) and cognitive processing abilities (scores on a troop test)
hypothesis directional or non-directional
directional
state a null hypothesis
there will be no correlation between driving experience (in years) and cognitive processing abilities (scores on a stroop test)
methodology?
correlational study
what does a correlational study involve
investigates relationship between variables without the researcher controlling or manipulation any of them, a correlation reflects the strength and/or direction of the relationship between 2 or more variables.
why have i chose to do a correlational study
allows us to establish if there is a relationship between the 2 co-variables under consideration.
this is necessary to justify further investigation through methods that can be more costly and time consuming than correlational studies.
correlational study is a more ethical way to conduct research compared to experiments as there is no need to manipulate variables.
location of research
online
what does research being online mean
allows researchers to be able to access pps via the internet or on social networking tools
why have you chosen online
convenient and cost effective
efficient and convenient method of data collection (a larger number of responses, from pps with a greater range of driving experience, can be collected quickly without the need for the researcher to be present.
reduced social desirability bias- as pps will complete the stroop test online, can remain wholly anonymous to the researcher, may encourage them to report their times honestly (increasing reliability and validity)
ethical issues
confidentiality
risk of harm
valid consent
how to deal with confidentiality
people who score poorly on the test may not want their score published next to their names. anonymity will be offered, pps numbers will be used. the online location will allow for greater anonymity
how to deal with risk of harm
debrief will be used to assess whether undue harm or distress has been caused, necessary support offered to those who encounter distress through completing the stroop test. informed right to withdraw
how did i deal with consent
pps will be asked to formally indicate their agreement to participate in the study and this agreement should be based on information about the purpose of the research and their role in it
target population
Drivers in the UK
sampling method
opportunity sampling
what does opportunity sampling involve
a sampling technique where pps are selected at the researchers convenience without knowing any details about the sample in advance e.g. picking people who were there at the time in your specific location
reason for choosing opportunity sampling
it efficient. far mor quick and convenient than other sampling methods (e.g. a random sampling)
researchers have convenient and easy access to the target population of individuals who can drive in members of staff and students via their school
some other methods (self-selected and snowball sampling) methods would result in highly biased samples as all pps share the particular characteristics (results wouldn’t be able to be generalised)
main characteristics of sample
20 pps
male and female
mixed gender
all teachers who work in a secondary school in wales
all must be able to drive and drive regularly
what are extraneous/confounding variables
E- variables in the study that aren’t being measured or manipulated by the researcher but they affect the results (DV) of ALL PPS behaviour in a particular condition equally
C- variables in the study that aren’t being measured or manipulated by the researcher, that affect SOME PPS behaviour but not others, having negative consequences on the validity
potential extraneous variables
time of day- some pps may be more alert depending when they completed the stroop test, may alter their time/score on the stroop test e.g. pps may be more alert and better able to cope with the stroop test in the morning, putting some pps at an advantage
demand characteristics- pps may attempt to guess the aims of the research and alter their stroop test performance and outcomes to try and give the researchers the results they are hoping for
confounding variables
caffeine levels- some pps may have consumed caffeine prior to completing the stroop test, may make them more cognitively alert and increase their outcomes compared to others
age- driving experience and stroop scores are correlated. those with more driving experience are also likely to be older, it may actually be age that correlated with cognitive ability (not driving experience)
how to eliminate some variables
like time of day/location/demand characteristics/vision impairments
controlled via the strandardised instructions given to pps before completing the stroop test. told to complete the test in the morningm without distraction, withdraw from the study if they have a visual impairment
what variables have not been possible to control for
caffeine levels- some pps may have consumed caffeine prior to completing the stroop test (may be more alert so score higher)
internal reliability?
the extent to which a test or measure is consistent within itself
external reliability
the extent to which a test produces consistent results over several occasions
2 issues of reliability
fluke outcome: PPS results were recored after just one trial on the Stroop style task. this could’ve been a fluke result/chance happening
effort applied: pps may differ substantially in the extent to which they try when doing the stroop test, this could alter the final Stroop scores and therefore compromise the investigation
how could we asses reliability in this research
test-retest reliability
how could i implement test-retest in my research
PPS would complete the stroop style task, a carefully selected period of time would be left (long enough the students can’t remember how to perform the test, but not so long that they could have changed in some way e.g. taken a course in how to enhance cognitive performance) and then the same PPS would be re-tested in the exact same way. 2 stroop test from the different occasions are correlated
a significant positive correlation=high external validity
how to improve the reliability of the investigation
fluke outcome; PPS could complete three trials on the stroop style task and take an average score to avoid fluke or chance results
standardised procedures and instructions for all pps
effort applied: as part of the standardised instructions, pps will be asked to put as much effort into their completion of the stroop test as possible
internal validity
the findings are accurate and the effects on the DV are caused by the IV, study measures what it intends to measure (confounding/extraneous variables have been controlled and will not affect the results)
external validity
whether the study paints a true picture of real life behaviours and whether the findings would apply to different places, different times or different people
potential validity issues
demand characteristics
social desirability bias (pps may not submit truthful data reflecting their stroop scores or driving experience in order to come across in a better light in the eyes of the researcher)
why is driving experience a potential validity issue
driving experience will be measured in years driving. however 2 individuals who have had the same number of years driving experience may have completed different levels of time driving.
why is mundane realism a potential validity issue
completing a stroop test is an artificial way of assessing cognitive processing abilities. we do not have to identify the colour that words are written in at speed on a day to day basis
why does it lack population validity
sample bias exists as an opportunity sample was used, only teachers from cardiff high so we are very limited as to who we can generalise our findings to
how to assess to the validity of this research
face validity
concurrent validity
what is face validity
the least sophisticated measure of validity, this is simply whether the test appears to measure what it claims to, it is subjective.
tests where the purpose is clear are said to have this validity
what is concurrent validity
validating a measurement by comparing it with an established measurement that has known validity. if similar results occur on both tests, then this new test is valid. fd not the the new test would have to be redesigned and tested.
how to implement face validity in this research
carry out an ‘eyeball test’ to see if it looks as though the stroop test chosen for use will be an appropriate measure of cognitive performance
how to implement concurrent validity in this research
compare the results produced on the stroop style task with a previously validated test of cognitive ability. if the results of both test come to the same conclusion then the stroop test outcome is valid
how to improve the validity of this research
turn extraneous/confounding variables into controlled variables e.g. ask pps to complete the stroop test under silent conditions, during the morning and whilst not feeling tired or run down. (increase the internal validity)
social desirability bias: pps will be assured of the anonymity of their stroop test data which will hopefully encourage them to complete their tests accurately and record their results honestly.
