research methods/ issues and debates Flashcards
evaluate the use of cross sectional research in clinical psychology
+ data is gathered quicker than longitudinal
+ valid as they will be repeated at the time they have most application rather then several years later
- cohort effects - comparing different groups of people, individual differences may have an effect
- results may be due to being raised in a particular time/place e.g. AN have been exposed to different cultural images
evaluate the use of longitudinal research in clinical psychology
+ only reliable way of measuring the effect of time on the behavior in question
+ in depth view of long term effects of a treatment
- sample attrition, people drop out of the study
- new drugs/ treatments may be developed during the time of the study
evaluate the use of secondary data in clinical psychology
+ can check for reliability and validity with other sources with more ease
+ relatively cheap- when considering time, materials, design
- may no longer be relevant for the current time frame
- subjective interpretation of results
evaluate the use of primary data in clinical psychology
+ operationalisation is done with the research aim in mind
+ credible- gathered for the particular purpose
- expensive when considering time, materials, design
- limited by time, location, number and type of participant
evaluate the use of cross cultural research in clinical psychology
+ high generalisability as not ethnocentric
+ helps identify symptoms and features of mental illness that are biological in nature if they are present cross-culturally
- cultural bias- the researchers have their own cultural values so may not fully apreciate the ppts experience
- low validity if the interperatation of patients behaviours is not fully understood
evaluate the use of meta-analysis in clinical psychology
+ quick and cheap as the researcher doesn’t conduct the research themselves
+ no issue with ethics as the research has already been conducted
- publication bias as conclusions drawn are determined by the researcher conducting the selection of the research
- low validity and reliability as researchers havent gathered the data directly
evaluate the use of content analysis
+ high ecological validity- based on observations of what people actually do e.g. newspapers or books that people read
+ test-retest reliability if the sources are kept
- subjective as the researcher interpenetrates what catagory the data should go in
- cultural bias
evaluate the use of thematic analysis in clinical psychology
+ remains qualatitive so it retains the beliefs and values of ppts
+ test-retest reliability- data is gone through repeatedly to see if themes match original data
- subjective as quotes are selected by researcher
- time consuming
evaluate questionnaires
+ data can be collected from large numbers of people relatively quickly because they can all do it at the same time
+ respondents may feel more willing to reveal personal info in a queastionaire rather than an interview because they feel more anonymous
- social desirability bias
- biased sample- only certain kinds of people fill out questionnaires- literate individuals who are willing to spend time filling them out
closed questions
+ quantitative data- easy to analyse and draw conclusions because you can make comparisons
+ objective- answers are likely to be interpreted the same way by any researcher
- researcher determines the choice of answers so people cannot express their precise feelings
- oversimplifies human experiences- suggests there are simple answers but people are likely to think several answers reflect their views
how is rosenhans procedure socially sensitive
clinician made to feel incompetent as an incorrect diagnosis was given
family might have to care for them through the trauma and witnessing abuse from other patients
reputation of psychiatry was damaged. people who need help are unlikely to reach out
rosenhan was ostracized by the psychological community
how is loftus and palmers study socially sensitive
ppts may be left feeling silly/ stupid for adjusting their estimate of speed
ppts left feeling worried about their memory and concerned if they are subsequently a witness to a crime
makes people with EWT unreliable. CJS dont just use EWT anymore. devlin report revealed problems within the CJS
positive implication for loftus, now known reputation for this area of research
evaluate random sample
+ unbiased- all people in target population have an equal chance of selection
+ easy to randomly select ppts- specific subgroup chosen first
- participant bias- may turn into volunteer sample if ppts dont agree
- time consuming- need to obtain a list and ask sample if they are willing to participate
evaluate stratified sample
+ representative- ppts representative to numbers in the target population
+ low extraneous variables- subgroups chosen according to variables important to researcher
- biased- researcher decides which subgroups to include
- time consuming
evaluate volunteer sample
+ convenient/ less dropout rates
+ can gather a specialised sample e.g. putting an ad on the noticeboard of a medical school to gain medical students
- participant bias- extroverts/ people who benefit from taking part
- demand characteristics- ppts more willing to be helpful, prone to guessing the aims of the study
