RM

Experiments - Lab
IV changed, DV Measured

Conducted in highly controlled environments: controls extraneous varibales
- can be anywhere as long as conditions, well controlled
- ppts generally randomly allocated to diff conditions

✅high degree of control - solely IV caushing change to DV
✅easier to replciate as all other vairbales kept same
❌ highly contolled, artiifical : Lack ECO validity
❌demand characteristics, know they are partiicipating in an expeirment + alter behavior

Experiment - Field

Iv manipulated by experimenter( just like lab)
experiment carried out in natural environment
some situational variable controlled not all

✅Eco validity as natural env.
✅low demand characterisitcs : act more naturally
❌less control of Extr.V. - 👇internal validity
❌hard to replicate

Experiment - Natural

- carried out in naturally occuring experiment
Experiment doesnt directly manipulate IV , when rsh takes advanatge of pre-exisitng IV : used for unethical sit.
💥cant manipulate IV (privation- removal of children from parents)

✅Eco validity: natrual , representative
✅lower D charactersitics - (natural settign more unaware)
❌ v low degee of control of Extr.V. - 👇internal validity
❌v hard to replicate (unlikely same sit happen again)

Experiment - Quasi

- Iv based on existing diff between ppl : age, gender
- no one manpilauted varible just exists
✅more eco validity
✅lower D characteristics
❌ v low degee of control of Extr.V. - 👇internal validity
❌v hard to replicate (unlikely same sit happen again), need to natrually occur

Reliability
Validity
Internal Validity definitions

🍋Validity - extent to which a test accurately measures what it claims to measure
(needs to be valid in order for the results to be accurately applied and interpreted)

🍋Reliability -Refers to whether something is consistent.

🍋In.Validity - whether or not the research measures what is intends to measure
(Basically, whether the IV is what is causing a change to the DV, and not E.V)

Observations

Questionaaires

💥open qs: qs alloq respondant to provide own answers , qual data produced
💥closed qs: preD range of answers, quan data e.g YES/NO

a set of written qs , predetemined ( structured)
invesigator asks qs indirectly via qsaaire
🍋closed qs can be divided even more into 3 types : Likert, rating, fixed choice.

✅easy repro (can be copied dist many times) 👆pop validity
✅less social desirablity bias - less pa to conform 👆 Val.
❌more misundertanding - cant ask for claritifcaiotn 👇Val
❌Unrepresenatitive sample : ppl who wanna take part may not be representation of target pop 👇pop validity

Interviews 3 types

🐴structured
- qs predetermines, D asked , Qs answered immediately
✅replicability , no bias in qstioning
❌unable to epxlore themes beyond structure

💢unstructured
- gen. topic :conversational, feq qs predetermined dont need to be asked, new qs developed duirng course of interview based on interviewees answers
- flow of answers given and directs qs on this: qs answered immediately
✅detailed info collected , more insight as can tailor qs to indivdual👆Val + fewer misunderstandings
❌invesitgator effects (bias) : conform pa due to interviews epxectatios of them, diff to repro.


🍆semi structured
-inital qs predetermined then new qs developed on basis on interviewws answers , directly asked person to person
✅still allows ppts to tell story as rhey want to but some areas covered ( flexibikity of preD qs and open qs approach) , consistency when replicability
❌rsher mught stick too much to schedule, may impose own expectations on data.

Correlation vs Causation

correll: measures rs between 2 covairbales : useful when ethically wrong to manipulate IV : stress rsh

✅allows rshers to invesitgate naturally occuring varible when may be unethicall to test experimentally & allows rshers to easily n clearly see rs between variables
❌correll not causation : cant assume, correl doesnt allow us to go beyond data given.

Focus Groups

- 6-10 ppl all have common charactersitics relevant to topic
group convo between ppts
- NEED FACILITATOR FOR focus group

✅quick convenier to collect lots of info from lots of ppl, puposive sampling" experts in field, chosen cuz of this"
❌conformity, no anonymity and confidentiality

Case studies

- usually longitudinal
indepth study of jsut 1 or small no of pppl
incl open ended qs, interviesm obs on ppl who can provide info on past present expericnes and behavious
used to investigate ppl who show unusual abilities and difficulties

✅good for individual problems as forms basis of future rsh, helps scientific rsh, lookw at how past relate to present ,gets detialed pic of individual
❌haerd to standardise + generalise, relies of retrospective evience : may be distorted, poor quality , unreliable

1b) Sampling

2a) Ethics in application

Informed consent
-voluntary full consent , ppts must be informed about purpose of rsh, whats required and right to withdraw at any point

Deception
pps deliberately misled/ rshers deliberately withold info about aims of study - somtimes unavoidable as would invalidate study if ppls knew . If are misled must be debriefed at end❗

Protection from Harm
-ppts protected from physical n psychiological harm as much as poss - shoudl avoid risks greater than everyday lfie :same state before and after leaving psychiologically sound, no triggers

Right to withdraw
free to withdraw any time from start and have their data destroued even if completeted rsh, right still applies even if they have accepted payment for participation

Confidentiality
-ppts rights to have personal info prtected , legal right under data protection act ( ESP Case Studies)

Privacy
ppl dont expect to be obs in certain sit. esp in own house but may be diff to avoid invasion of privacy if stuydng ppts w/o their awareness.

cost-benefit analysis

relax some ethical standards for the sake of a particular study
-If study can reveal scientific info that can benefit lot ppl + no other way of studying a phenomena

2b) Ethics in reporting results

Data fabrication
vio of ethics! if found in already published results , reasonable measured need to be taken to correct it

Plaigarism - Unethical to present as own

Publication credit authorship on publciation should acc reflect relative contributions of all authors

Sharing rsh data for verification rshers not withold data used to derive conc present in publication

Social implication of reporting scientiifc results
rshers aware of pot. effects of way conc formulated on scientifc comm & society -Care must be taken to report results precisely and accurately

Handling sensitive info
💘Handling of info obatined in genetic rsh
twin/adoption/family studies can reveal private info - can be disclosed accidently/inferred by participants/report in results. certain requirement in the way results should be relayed to participants (handled with care & sensitivity + ppt's monitored/given psych support)

💘Handling of info related to mental disorders
some studies may reveal disorders/illnesses that were previously unknown/ could reveal they are at risk of dev. disorder/illness.
This knowledge may have consequences e.g. change in self-esteem/ change in expectations of life.

3a) Poss of generalising/transferring findings of study?

Generalisation of quan.rsch\= prob sampling, results applciable to whole TP
Transferability of quan rsch\=process of applying results of rsch of one sit. to another sit.

Generalisability
- Representational G: findings from QS can be appplied to pop. outside pop. of study
-Inferential G aka Transferability : findings of study can applied to settings outside setting of study. Whether findings can be transferred to another setting depend on depth of description provided.
-Theoretical generalisation - theoretical concepts derived from study, can used to develop further theory. The findings from one study may lead to inferences that could contribute to wider society.

Transferability
-if enuff similarities between 2 sit. - readers may infer results of rsh simialr or same in own sit.: transfer resutls from one study to next

3b. Credibility of findings

External Val.\= extent results of study can be generalsied/transferrred to another sample/context

Int. Val\= rigour of study+ extent to which rsher took alternative expl into acc.
can be improved by : control of Ex.V, counterbalancing, using SI,eliminating DC and Inv. effects , CAUSAL RS bteen IV DV

used in qual rsch.indicates whether or not findings of study coincide with ppts perception and experience.
Rolfe 2006 : " credibility corresponds to the concept of internal validity" in quan rhsch. C linked to trustworthiness ( when findings of rsch reflect meaning as ppl described them)

💘Triangulation
-cross checking info, sources,use of multiple procedures, use of diff perspectives methods and sources to see of IN of data can be supported. - 4 TYPES

💘Reflexivity
- based on assum. that rsher aware of his/her own contri. to construction of meaning in rsch process. reflect on ways bias may occur my acknowledging their own background and beleifs can influence rsh.
1. Personal R - how rshers own values, beleifs,experiences inform rsh and hwo rsh has affecter rsher personally, prof.
2. Epistemological R- how Knowledge has been generated in study: design of study, data was analysed : bias, diff appraoch could have brough diff undertsanding of topic.

3c . How rsher could avoid bias in study

Bias \= tendency , inclination or prejudice towards or against something or someone . may be implicit bias or biases from life long societal input.
-quan data cant be manip. so less risk of B but qual ➡️mis IN+ obs more prone to B

Ppts: DC
Main ❗: Rsher Bias:
Dominant response Bias ( occurs in Focus G )
Rsher must manage + avoid dom response bias by making sure rsher allows every ind equal oppo to speak n safe/comfortbale to voice own opinions.
Avoiding DC:
avoid leading qs ➡️make them neutral and open ended , qs designed in non judgemental way so any answer acceptable
Sensitivity B:
- D' sensitiive answers, build good rapport - trust , Behave Prof. make ethical guidliens clear +👆 sensiitvity of qs gradually while being responsive
Confirmation B:
-rsher has prior B and uses rsh in unintended attempt to confirm that B . may infleunce qs wording, Selecivity of A to answers that support preE beleifs discard otthers ,while obs/In behaviour - hard to avoid so shoudl be trained to recog itand take it into acc\= refleciviity
Sampling B:
- sample not adequate for aims of rsh, rep TP
B reporting:
- findsings not rep. those that dont fit not shown clealry - brief expl. avoid \= aware fof it , using traianfulation in qual+ quan.

✅lower D characteristics

❌ v low degee of control of Extr.V. - 👇internal validity

❌v hard to replicate (unlikely same sit happen again), need to natrually occur

Reliability

Validity

Internal Validity definitions

🍋Validity - extent to which a test accurately measures what it claims to measure

(needs to be valid in order for the results to be accurately applied and interpreted)

🍋Reliability -Refers to whether something is consistent.

🍋In.Validity - whether or not the research measures what is intends to measure

(Basically, whether the IV is what is causing a change to the DV, and not E.V)

Observations

Questionaaires

💥open qs: qs alloq respondant to provide own answers , qual data produced