Research Methods Q2

Understanding Research Methods in Validity Studies

• Research methods help psychologists assess whether a diagnosis accurately reflects a disorder (validity).

• These methods can be qualitative (detailed case studies, interviews) or quantitative (experiments, statistical analysis).

• The goal is to ensure that diagnostic systems are reliable and valid across different contexts.

Types of Research Methods for Studying Validity

• Experiments

  • Controlled studies that manipulate variables to observe their effect on diagnosis.

  • Example: A study comparing structured vs. unstructured interviews to see which leads to more accurate diagnoses.

  • Strengths: High control, can establish cause and effect.

  • Limitations: May lack real-world applicability due to artificial settings.

• Case Studies

  • In-depth examination of an individual’s condition to understand diagnostic challenges.

  • Example: Studying a patient with schizophrenia to assess how different doctors interpret symptoms.

  • Strengths: Provides rich, detailed insights.

  • Limitations: Findings may not be generalizable.

• Naturalistic Observations

  • Researchers observe real-world clinical settings without interference.

  • Example: Watching how psychiatrists diagnose patients in a hospital.

  • Strengths: High real-world relevance.

  • Limitations: No control over external factors, possible researcher bias.

• Correlational Studies

  • Examining the relationship between two factors (e.g., does a higher depression score predict lower social functioning?).

  • Strengths: Identifies trends in large populations.

  • Limitations: Cannot establish cause and effect.

• Surveys and Interviews

  • Collecting self-reported data from clinicians or patients to assess diagnostic consistency.

  • Strengths: Large sample sizes, cost-effective.

  • Limitations: Can be influenced by response bias.

• Meta-Analysis

  • Reviewing multiple studies to evaluate overall validity in diagnosis.

  • Example: Analyzing 50 studies on the accuracy of anxiety diagnoses.

  • Strengths: Provides strong evidence by combining data from different research.

  • Limitations: Can be influenced by the quality of included studies.

Rosenhan’s Study (1973) as an Example of a Research Method

• Study Overview:

  • Sent healthy individuals (pseudo-patients) to psychiatric hospitals claiming they heard voices.

  • Once admitted, they behaved normally, but were still diagnosed with schizophrenia.

• Research Method Used: Naturalistic Observation

  • Observed how psychiatrists made diagnoses in real settings.

• Key Findings:

  • Low validity—Clinicians misdiagnosed healthy individuals.

  • Confirmation bias—Doctors interpreted normal behavior as part of the disorder.

• Strengths of This Method:

  • Showed real-world flaws in psychiatric diagnosis.

• Limitations of This Method:

  • Ethical concerns (deception), lack of control over hospital responses.

Comparing Different Research Methods

Improving Research on Validity

• Use of technology: AI and machine learning can help analyze large diagnostic data sets.

• Cross-cultural research: Ensures validity across different populations.

• Combination of methods: Using multiple research approaches provides a more complete understanding.

Why Research on Validity Matters

• Ensures that diagnoses correctly identify disorders rather than mislabeling patients.

• Helps improve treatment effectiveness by refining diagnostic criteria.

• Reduces misdiagnosis and over-diagnosis, leading to better mental health care.