1/54
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
Generalizability
is the extent to which results of the study can be applied to the broader context - beyond the sample and the settings used in the study itself.
Population validity
the extent to which findings can be generalized from the sample to the target population.
Ecological validity
refers to the extent to which findings can be generalized from the experiment to other settings or situations.
Temporal validity
an external validity that refers to the generalizability of a study’s results across time.
Construct validity
the extent to which results of the study can be generalized from operationalizations to theoretical constructs.
Transferability
is the extent to which we can transfer the findings from one study to another context. It is the qualitative research equivalent of generalizability and means the same thing. We do not use the term generalizability in qualitative research because the sampling methods are not representational, so the findings are never ‘generalized’.
Case to case generalization
which refers to applying the findings from the setting of the research study to other similar settings.
Theoretical generalization
generalization is made from observations to a broader theory. Theory plays a much greater role in qualitative research than quantitative.
Sample to population generalization
refers to applying the results of the study from the participants who took part in the study to the wider population.
Research bias
results from any deviation from the truth, causing distorted results and wrong conclusions. Bias can occur at any phase of your research, including during data collection, data analysis, interpretation, or publication. Research bias can occur in both qualitative and quantitative research. Understanding research bias is important for several reasons.
Researcher triangulation
Researcher triangulation involves multiple independent researchers analyzing the same data to ensure objectivity. Instead of relying on a single person's interpretations, different analysts provide insights, which can then be compared for consistency. This approach prevents bias from arising due to subjective viewpoints.
Double-blind controls
methodological safeguards where both participants and experimenters are unaware of key experimental conditions. This prevents either party from unintentionally influencing results due to expectations or subconscious cues.
Replication
the process of repeating an experiment with different samples, researchers, and contexts to verify the reliability of findings. A study with strong scientific integrity should produce similar results when replicated.
Random sampling
Random sampling ensures that every individual in the population has an equal chance of being selected, preventing systematic biases in sample recruitment. Stratified sampling divides participants into key subgroups (e.g., age, gender) to maintain balanced representation.
Transparent reporting
Transparent reporting ensures that all study findings—including non-significant results—are documented in publications. This prevents the selective omission of data that may not support the researcher’s hypothesis.
Deception
misleading participants about the true purpose of the study to prevent them from consciously adjusting their behavior. This technique ensures their actions remain natural and uninfluenced by expectations.
Anonymity
Anonymous data collection ensures that participants’ responses are not personally identifiable, reducing social pressure. Indirect questioning
involves asking about general behaviors or peers' actions rather than personal ones, encouraging honest responses.
Hawthorne effect
–participants modify behavior simply because they know they are being watched.
By observing participants covertly or in familiar settings, researchers prevent behavioral adjustments that occur due to awareness of observation, ensuring more natural responses.
Acquiescence bias
When participants tend to agree with statements regardless of their true beliefs.
Participants must actively engage with reverse-coded questions, preventing them from defaulting to agreement without properly considering the statement’s meaning.
Single-blind control
ensures that participants do not know which condition they have been assigned to, preventing them from modifying their behavior based on perceived expectations. Researchers, however, remain aware of the conditions.
Counterbalancing
ensures that order effects—where condition sequence affects responses—are controlled by altering test order across participants.
Random allocation
ensures participants are equally distributed across experimental conditions, preventing systematic differences between groups. Matching techniques involve pairing participants with similar characteristics (e.g., age, intelligence) across conditions.
Repeated measures design
means the same participants experience all experimental conditions, reducing individual differences as a confounding factor.
Curvilinear relationship
In calculating the correlation between two variables, we assume the relationship between them is linear when there may be a hidden curve to the relationship. Mathematically the formula of a correlation coefficient is a formula of a straight line. However, curvilinear relationships cannot be captured in a standard correlation coefficient.
If suspected, curvilinear relationships should be investigated graphically (scatterplots)
Third variable problem
There is always a possibility that a third variable exists that correlate both with A and B and explains the correlation between them. If you only measure A and B, you will observe a correlation between them, but it does not mean that they are related directly.
Consider potential “third variables” in advance and include them in the research study to explicitly investigate the links between A, B and these “third variables”.
Spurious correlations
Spurious correlations are correlations obtained by chance. They become an issue if the research study includes multiple variables and computes multiple correlations between them. If you measure 100 correlations, there is a chance a small number will be significant, even if the variables are not related.
Results of multiple correlations should be interpreted with caution. Effect sizes need to be considered together with the level of statistical significance. Avoid formulating hypotheses after the dataset has been obtained.
Reflexivity
is the practice of critically reflecting on one's own beliefs, assumptions, and potential biases throughout the research process. It requires researchers to actively acknowledge and document their influence on data collection and interpretation.
Triangulation
involves using multiple data sources, theoretical perspectives, or researchers to cross-validate findings and reduce subjective bias.
Member checking
Member checking, a form of credibility checks, involves sharing preliminary findings with participants to ensure interpretations accurately represent their perspectives.
Audit trails
involves keeping detailed records of all research decisions, coding frameworks, and analytical choices to ensure transparency.
Rapport building
Establishing strong rapport with participants fosters open and honest communication, reducing the likelihood of altered responses due to discomfort or distrust.
Covert observations
Using covert observation techniques or passive monitoring tools prevents participants from altering their behavior due to researcher presence.
Credibility
It is a criterion used to judge the quality of qualitative research. The extent to which something or someone can be believed and trusted. The conclusions of the study must give a true picture of the phenomenon under investigation and accurately represent the perspective of the participants, that is, represent reality as the participants see it
Validity
equivalent of credibility, validity refers to the accuracy of the methods in achieving the desired aims. See internal and external, as well as construct, population, and ecological validity.
Triangulation
Triangulation allows for data gathering through multiple researchers, methods, or points in time. This offers more opportunity for replication of results and increases the robustness of findings. If the results are the conclusions will become more trustworthy/accurate and increase credibility.
· Researcher triangulation: by using two or more researchers to measure/gather the data, this can reduce research bias and/or error and increase inter-rater reliability (if the results match). As a result, the findings should be more accurate and trustworthy because the bias/errors of one researcher should be checked and corrected by the other. Researcher triangulation can occur during the recording, analysis and/or reporting of the data.
Thick/rich descriptions
In qualitative research, describing the observed behavior in sufficient detail so that it can be understood holistically and in context prevents errors by the reader to not draw assumptions if details are missing. Contextual details should be sufficient to make the description meaningful to an outsider who never observed this behavior first-hand. This can help identify and avoid potential biases and build trust with the reader.
Quantitative
Quantitative research relies on objective, numerical or measurable data. Quantitative data is analyzed statistically to identify patterns.
Qualitative
Qualitative research relies on subjective experiences, personal accounts or documents that illustrate in detail how people think or respond within society.
True lab experiment
Examines a hypothesis that predicts a causal relationship between the effects of an IV on a DV b) The researcher manipulates the IV, so random allocation of participants to the treatment or control condition is possible c) Takes place in a controlled environment where confounding variables are controlled d) A cause-effect relationship can be established between manipulation of the IV and levels of the DV
Field experiment
Examines a hypothesis that predicts a causal relationship between the effects of an IV on a DV b) The researcher manipulates the IV, so random allocation of participants to the treatment or control condition is possible c) Takes place in a naturalistic setting, so confounding variables are NOT always controlled d) A cause-effect relationship MAY be established with caution between manipulation of the IV and levels of the DV (not all confounding variables may have been controlled)
Quasi-experiment
Examines the effects of an IV on a DV, however the IV is not manipulated by the researcher b) Participants are grouped based on a characteristic of interest, such as gender, ethnicity, or scores on a depression scale c) This can take place in a lab setting or a natural setting, and confounding variables can still be controlled d) One or more conditions of a true experiment cannot be met (no manipulation of the IV, random allocation of participants is not possible) – therefore a cause-effect relationship between the IV and DV cannot be established.
Natural experiment
Examines the effects of an IV on a DV, however the IV is not manipulated by the researcher b) The IV is naturally occurring (natural disaster, pandemic, new business placed in a new area, change in a law) c) Comparison of behavior before and after the event d) Extraneous variables may not always be controlled e) One or more conditions of a true experiment cannot be met (no manipulation of the IV, random allocation of participants is not possible) – therefore a cause-effect relationship between the IV and DV cannot be established.
Correlational study
Does not have an IV or DV, but has co-variables b) Measures the linear relationship between co-variables by calculating a correlation coefficient (positive, negative, or no pattern) c) Values of correlation coefficients range from -1.0 to 1.0. d) Correlations use inferential statistics to analyze data and depend on effect size (how large the correlation is) and statistical significance (less than 5% chance of error). e) Usually, data is collected through surveys or questionnaires. f) Never show causation
Survey
Gathers data, calculates correlations & makes statistical inferences on a large number of participants b) Uses data gathering techniques such as questionnaires c) Often gathers a random sample
Case study
Characteristics Pros Cons
· An in-depth investigation of an
individual or group that is unique
in some way.
· The case is studied very
thoroughly, using a combination of
different methods, and often
longitudinally.
· Since the researcher is interested
in this particular case, sampling is
not an issue.
· There is less focus on
generalizability of results. · Case studies are useful to investigate phenomena that cannot be studied otherwise, for example, a case of unique brain damage or long-term deprivation. · Case studies can contradict established theories and in this way urge scientists to develop new ones. · Researcher bias and participant bias are problems because the researcher interacts with the participant for prolonged periods of time, which may compromise impartiality of the researcher and influence how natural the participant’s behavior is. · Generalization of findings from a single case to other settings or a wider population is particularly problematic. · Difficult to protect the confidentiality of participants and their data.
Observation (and all of its
subcomponents)
Common characteristics of observations:
· The researcher visually monitors and records/documents participant’s behavior.
· No manipulation of variables – no control or treatment groups.
· Observation allows the researcher to gain first-hand experiences with the phenomenon under study.
· The main limitation of observation is the fact that the researcher is strongly involved in the generation of data through selective attention and interpretation.Type Explanation Pros Cons
Naturalistic Naturalistic observation is done in real-life settings not arranged for the study's purposes. Used when it is unethical to encourage a particular behavior (such as violence). Participants’ behavior is not influenced by the artificiality of the research procedure. It may be time-consuming because the behavior of interest only occurs at certain times.
Laboratory Carried out in specially designed environments. Participants often know that they are participating in psychology research. It is possible to recreate situations that do not frequently emerge in real life. It is possible to isolate the behavior of interest more efficiently. Artificiality of the procedure may influence the behavior of participants.
Overt Participants are aware they are being observed. Participants give informed consent, so ethical guidelines are followed. Participants’ expectations may influence their behavior.
Covert The researcher does not inform the group members about the reasons for their presence. Participants do not suspect that they are being observed, so they behave naturally. Often participants do not consent to being observed, which raises ethical issues.
Participant In participant observation the observer becomes part of the observed group. Allows the researcher to experience the phenomenon “from within” and gain important insights. There is a risk that the observer will become too involved with the group and lose objectivity.
Non-
participant The observer remains removed from the observed group. More impartial. Some details about the observed group can only be understood from the perspective of a group member.
Interview (and all of its
subcomponents)
Common characteristics to all interviews include:
· Interviews are self-report techniques that an interviewer uses to ask questions of a participant where they give answers on their personal experiences (self-reporting).
· Interviews allow insight into the subjective experience of the participant’ opinions, attitudes, and the meanings they attach to certain events.
· Interview data comes in the form of an audio or video recording that is subsequently converted to an interview transcript. This data is analyzed to identify patterns and themes (inductive content analysis)
Type Characteristics Pros Cons
Structured
Interview Such interviews include a fixed list of closed questions that need to be asked in a fixed order. The procedure is highly controlled, and the interviewer is bound to the interview schedule. Does not require much training; useful when several interviewers are involved, and it is essential to ensure that they all conduct the interview in a standardized way. Data is easy to analyze. Some participants may have unique circumstances or opinions that cannot be accommodated in a structured interview.
Semi-
structured
Interview Use an interview guide with a list of questions and topics that need to be covered during the interview. But it allows for flexibility, where the interviewer can ask the respondent to elaborate on answers. The questions can be open or closed. It fits the natural flow of conversation better. Better suited for socially sensitive issues. More effective in studying the unique experiences of each participant. Less comparability across interviews because there is flexibility in questions added. Interviewers need to be trained and know how to establish rapport. Time consuming to analyze data.
Unstructured
Interview Involves an informal discussion on a particular topic, the very next question is determined by the interviewee’s answer to the previous one. Very effective for investigating unique cases or cases where no theoretical expectations exist that would inform the wording of the questions. More time-consuming and results are more difficult to analyze and interpret. Requires significant training
Focus groups
Characteristics Pros Cons
· The focus group is a special type of semi-
structured interview that is conducted
simultaneously with a small group of
people (usually 6 to 10).
· The unique feature of this method is that
participants are encouraged to interact
with each other, for example. To agree
and disagree with each other on certain
statements.
· This creates group dynamics that are
observed and analyzed by the researcher.
· The interviewer in this case also acts as a
facilitator who keeps the interaction
focused on the research questions. · Participants interact with each other rather than the researcher. This makes their behavior more natural. Moreover, interaction between participants may reveal more aspects that would be revealed in a one-on-one conversation with the researcher. · It is easier to respond to sensitive questions when you are in a group. · Multiple perspectives are discussed which allows researchers to get a more holistic understanding of the topic. · Dominant respondents can disrupt group dynamics. Their assertiveness may affect the behavior of other participants and distort their responses. · It is more difficult to preserve confidentiality in a group. · Focus groups are especially demanding in terms of sampling and creating interview transcripts.
Probabilistic sampling
a statistical method where each member of a target population has a known, non-zero chance of being selected for a sample, ensuring the sample is representative of the larger group.
Non-probabilistic sampling
a research method where participants are selected based on criteria other than random chance, such as convenience, subjective judgment, or specific expertise.
Random sampling
a technique for selecting a representative subset of individuals from a larger population, ensuring that every member has an equal chance of being chosen to reduce bias and increase the likelihood that the sample accurately reflects the whole group.
Convenience sampling
a non-probability research technique where participants are chosen based on their easy accessibility and willingness to participate, rather than by random selection.
Volunteer sampling
a non-probability sampling method where participants self-select to join a study by responding to advertisements or calls for volunteers
Purposive sampling
a non-probability research method where a researcher intentionally selects participants based on their specific characteristics, knowledge, or experiences relevant to the study's objectives, rather than by random chance
Snowball sampling
a non-probability research technique where initial participants refer additional subjects for a study, creating a growing network of participants similar to a snowball rolling down a hill.