Research Methods - Year 13 Flashcards
Correlation And Correlation Coefficient?
Correlation - a mathematical technique in which a researcher investigated an association between co variables.
Correlation coefficient- number between -1 and +1 that represents the direction and strength of a relationship between two co variables. They’re plotted on a scattergram.
The closer to -1 or +1, the stronger the correlation.
Difference between descriptive and inferential statistics?
This isn’t too important.
Descriptive - graphs, tables and summary statistics (measures of central tendency and dispersion. Used to identify trends and analyse data.
Inferential - statistical tests which tell psychologists whether relationships are significant or not. This helps decided wether a hypothesis should be accepted or rejected. A correlational coefficient is calculated.
Two ways of analysing human behaviour?
(Don’t include year 12 stuff - like observations, investigations, etc).
Case studies and content analysis.
What are case studies?
A ‘case’ in psychology is a detailed and in-depth analysis of a person/group/institution or event (usually unusual).
Analyses human behaviour.
Usually produces qualitative data. But can produce quantitive.
Case history is produced - can involve interviews, questionnaires, observations and sometimes experimental or psychological testing takes place.
Usually longitudinal (take place over a long time).
What is a content analysis?
A way of analysing human behaviour.
An observational research technique where indirect study of behaviour takes place by examining communications that people produce. E.g. in texts, emails, TV, film and other media.
The aim is to summarise this communication system in a systematic way so overall conclusions can be drawn.
Involves coding and sometimes thematic analysis.
Coding?
Initial stage of content analysis.
Some data that needs analysed during content analysis is large so data is categorised into units.
E.g. a newspaper is analysed for references to ‘mentally ill’ communication. Words with these connotations include ‘crazy’ and ‘mad’.
The words are then counted for the amount of references to ‘mentally ill’.
Thematic analysis?
Content analysis may also involve thematic analysis.
Generates qualitative data.
Themes are reoccurring ideas, explicit or explicit, in communications. They’re likely to be more descriptive than coding.
Themes are then developed into broader categories such as ‘control’ and ‘stereotyping’ (they’re not just about mentally ill people, but about other things too.
Once the researcher is satisfied with the themes they have developed, they may collect more data to test validity of the themes and categories. Assuming these represent the data adequately, a final report is written usually using direct quotes to illustrate each theme.
Evaluation of case studies?
Strengths:
- offer rich and detailed insights to unusual and atypical behaviour.
- they contribute to our understanding of ‘normal’ functioning. E.g. the case of HM was significant in demonstrating ‘normal’ memory processing (separate stores in the STM and LTM.
- case studies may generate hypothesis for future study’s and revision of a whole new theory.
Weaknesses:
- generalisation of the findings is an issue when dealing with small samples sizes.
- the information in the final report is based on subjective interpretations of the researcher. Therefore conclusions cannot be confident.
- personal accounts are sometimes used from family and friends which may be prone to inaccuracy and memory decay (especially in childhood memories).
Therefore, they can lack validity.
Evaluation of content analysis?
Strengths:
- it can circumnavigate (get around) ethical issues associated with psychological research.
- much material that is being analysed (tv, film, etc) is already available available to public so it’s cheap and no issues with obtaining permission.
- communications such as texts between two people are really high in external validity, provided the authors consent is there.
- content analysis is flexible because it produce quantitive and qualitative data depending on aims.
Weaknesses:
- people are studied indirectly so the communication they produce is usually analysed out of context. There’s a danger that researcher may attribute opinions to someone which weren’t originally intended.
- many modern analysts are clear about how their own biases and preconceptions influence the research, and make this clear in the final report. However, some analysis may still stuffer from lack of objectivity, especially when more descriptive forms of thematic analysis are used.
-
What Is Reliability?
Reliability is a measure of consistency.
E.g. if you are using a tape measure, you expect to get the same results every time you measure a certain object. If the results are not consistent, then the measure is not reliable.
In psychology, a method (e.g. questionnaire) is deemed reliable if it consistently produces the same results.
How Can You Test Reliability?
To test reliability, you use the test‐retest method.
To do this: the same person or group of people are asked to undertake the research measure, e.g. a questionnaire, again.
What To Consider When Planning A Test-Retest Method?
- In the test-retest method, the same group of participants are being studied twice, so researchers need to be aware of any potential demand characteristics.
E.g. If the same measure is given twice in one day, there is a strong chance that participants will be able to recall the responses they gave in the first test, and so psychologists could be testing their memory rather than the reliability of their measure.
Psychologists avoid this from happening by repeating the study, but a few weeks later so that it is more unlikely the participants will recall the same answers.
- It is also important to make sure that there is not too much time between each test. For example, if psychologists are testing a measure of depression, and question the participants a year apart, it is possible that they may have recovered in that time, and so they give completely different responses for that reason, rather than that the questionnaire is not reliable.
How Do You Compare The Results Of A Test-Retest Method?
After the retest has been completed on two separate occasions, the two scores are then correlated.
If the correlation is shown to be significant, then the measure is deemed to have good reliability.
A perfect correlation is 1, and so the closer the score is to this, the stronger the reliability of the measure, but a correlation of over +0.8 is also perfectly acceptable and seen as a good indication of reliability.
Another name for this method is the ‘pearsons r test’. This is a good way of describing the method in exam questions.
What Is Inter-Observer Reliability?
- Inter‐observer reliability is the extent to which two or more observers are observing and recording behaviour in a consistent way.
- This is a useful way of ensuring reliability in situations where there is a risk of subjectivity.
E.g. if a psychologist was making a diagnosis for a mental health condition, it would be a good idea for someone else to also make a diagnosis to check that they are both in agreement.
- In psychological studies where ‘behavioural categories’ (e.g. violent play, non-violent play) are being applied, inter‐observer reliability is important to make sure that the categories are being used in the correct manner.
- To check inter-observer reliability, psychologist would observe the same situation or event separately, and then their observations (or scores) would be correlated to see whether they are suitably similar.
How To Ensure Reliability?
This is not the same as testing reliability.
We ensure reliability by using inter-observer reliability.
Example Of Inter-Observer Reliability?
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation
- From attachment topic,
- He uses operationalised behavioural categories,
During the controlled observation, the research team were looking for instances of separation anxiety, proximity seeking, exploration and stranger anxiety across the eight episodes of the methodology.
Ainsworth et al found 94% agreement between observers.
When inter‐observer reliability is assumed to a high degree, such as this, the findings are considered more reliable, and therefore meaningful.
If reliability is found to be poor, there are different ways in which it can be rectified depending on the type of measure being used.
How Can We Improve The Reliability Of: Questionnaires?
To improve the reliability of questionnaires, first researchers should identify which questions will have the biggest impact on the study and not include any questions that are unnecessary.
The questions should be written in a manner that reduces the potential for them to be incorrectly interpreted.
E.g. if the item in question is an open question, it may be possible to change it into a closed question, reducing possible responses and thereby limiting potential ambiguity.
How Can We Improve The Reliability Of: Interviews?
If reliability needs improving in an interview, there are several factors that can be adjusted.
Firstly, ensuring that the same interviewer is conducting all interviews will help reduce researcher bias. There is the potential for variation in the way that questions are asked which can then lead to different responses. Some researchers may ask questions that are leading or are open to interpretation.
If the same interviewer cannot be used throughout the interviewing process, then training should be provided in order to limit the potential bias.
Also, changing the interview from unstructured to structured will limit researcher bias.
How Can We Improve The Reliability Of: Experiments?
In experiments, the level of control that the researcher has over variables is one way that reliability can be influenced.
Laboratory experiments are often referred to as having high reliability due to the high level of control over the independent variable(s), which in turn makes them easier to replicate by following the standardised procedures.
To improve the reliability within experiments, researchers might try to take more control over extraneous variables, helping to further the potential for them to become confounding.
How Can We Improve The Reliability Of: Observations?
Observations can lack objectivity when the clear goal/objective of the study is not made clear. This could lead to researcher’s interpreting a situation/objective differently, leading to unreliable results.
If behavioural categories are being used, it is important that the researcher is applying them accurately and not being subjective in their interpretations. One way to improve reliability in this instance would be to operationalise the behavioural categories.
Difference Between Extraneous And Confounding Variables?
Extraneous variables are any variable other than the independent variable that might affect the dependent variable and therefore affect the results of the study.
Extraneous variables that are important enough to cause a change in the dependent variable are called confounding variables.
If they are not important enough to cause a change in the dependent variable, they stay known as extraneous variables.
What Are Operationalised Behavioural Categories?
This means that the categories need to be clear and specific on what constitutes the behaviour in question.
There should be no overlap between categories leaving no need for personal interpretation of the meaning.
What Is Validity?
Validity refers to whether something is true or legitimate.
There are different types of validity that can be assessed in psychology:
- Internal validity,
- External validity (Ecological validity and Temporal validity).
Internal Validity?
Internal validity is a measure of whether results obtained are solely affected by changes from the independent variable being manipulated in a cause and effect relationship.
This means the results can be representative of the population in the study (being studied).
External Validity?
External validity is a measure of whether data can be generalised to other situations/people outside of the research environment.
There are two different types of external validity:
- Ecological validity,
- Temporal validity.
Ecological Validity?
Ecological validity is a type of external validity.
It is the extent to which psychologists can apply their findings to other settings.
How is this different from external validity? External validity asks whether the findings of a study can be generalised to patients with characteristics that are different from those in the study, or patients who are treated in a different way, or patients who are followed up for longer duration.
In contrast, ecological validity specifically examines whether the findings of a study can be generalized to natural situations (e.g. patients in a hospital/clinical practice in everyday life).
