psychology revision - research methods topic (1)

8/9/2019 Psychology Revision - Research Methods Topic (1)

1/17

A2 Psychology Revision

Research Methods


2/17

Key Words

Empirical Data Data which can be physically seen.

Objectivity Data and research which is not subjective or bias.

Peer Review A third-party/external body within the sae !ield" validates research.

Abstract A suary o! a study/research.

Experiments #arrying out a test under controlled conditions/environents.

Self-Report et!ods Participants are as$ed to report their own attitudes" abilities or

!eelings.

Pilot St"dies A sall-scale trail o! a study to test all aspects o! the design.

#nter-rater Reliability %wo or ore observers are present throughout the analysis o! data.

$est Re-test Reliability A test is repeated a second tie using the sae saple and test.

Split-%alf et!od A test split between two di!!erent situations to see i! the sae

results are !ound.

Stratified Samplin& A group o! participants selected according to their !re&uency within

a population.

#nferential Statistics

$est

Procedures !or a$ing in!erences about the population !ro which

saples are drawn.

Probability A nuerical easure o! the li$elihood/chance that certain events

will occur.

Si&nificance A set o! !indings are su!!iciently strong enough !or us to accept.

'!ance %he extent to which soething occurs randoly.

Reflexivity %he process o! sel!-exaining &ualitative research.

'ontent Analysis An indirect observation o! soebody through their wor$ 'this is

usually presented through trends.

("ll %ypot!esis A hypothesis stating ()o !indings*.

Alternative %ypot!esis A hypothesis stating what you except to !ind !ro a success!ul test.


3/17

Observations

Proposed Theory

Testable Hypothesis

Conduct A Study

Draw Conclusion

Refne

Observations

Testable Hypothesis

Conduct A Study

Draw Conclusion

Propose Theory

Refne

Science

APP+,#A%,) ) $%E A)OR *EA$+RES O* S'#E('E

0cience is a eans o! !inding out the truth and !acts about our world1 however in order !or this to

be achieved various !actors ust !irst be deonstrated throughout the scienti!ic research1

• Empiricism , ,n!oration is gained through direct observation or experient.

• Objectivity , Personal expectations should not a!!ect what !indings are recorded.

• Replicability , Previously recorded ethods and procedures are re-tested to see i! the

outcoe is the sae.

• 'ontrol , Research attepts to !ind relationships through experiental ethods which

re&uire a degree o! control 'e.g. we vary the independent variable and observe its e!!ects on

a dependent variable. 3e ust ensure all other conditions are the sae 'controlled.

• $!eory 'onstr"ct , A theory is a collection o! general principles that explain observations

and !acts.

APP+,#A%,) %3 $%E S'#E($#*#' PRO'ESS

#nd"ction

%his involves reasoning 'creating a

theory !ro the particular to the general.

An exaple o! this is )ewton4s +aws.

Ded"ction

%his involves reasoning !ro the general

to the particular 'starting with a theory and

loo$ing !or instances that con!ir this. An

exaple o! this is Darwin4s %heory.

Popper ./012 proposed thehypothetico-deductive odel which

suggests a theory should coe !irst as

this can be used to generate hypotheses"

which can be !alsi!ied.


4/17

Eval"ation of Psyc!olo&y #s A Science3

Stren&t!s 4imitations

• ,n the nineteenth century" psychologists

wanted psychology to becoe a science

because it would enable the to produce

veri!iable $nowledge !or their research.

• Psychologists clai that huan behaviourcan be easured as objectively as any

other scienti!ic variable. #lais that studies

are 5experienter bias4 and experience

5deand characteristics4 are just the sae

as an experienter easuring a atos

behaviour 'as it will change its !orat when

observed.

iller ./502 suggests that psychologists

siply use the tools o! a scientists 'e.g.

content analysis and &uantative analysis"

but the essence o! science has eluded

the.

K"!n ./672 suggests psychology is not a

science because it doesn4t have any single

paradig 'a shared set o! assuptions

e.g. the behavioural" cognitive and

biological approaches.

4ain& ./682 suggests that psychology and

science have very di!!erent goals.

Psychology uses an ,diographic approach 6ta$ing into account individual cases 'he

suggested that the only way to treat

individuals was to view their own case"

whereas science generalises using a

noothetic approach.

7uhn suggested the scienti!ic ethod

9alidatin& (ew Knowled&e:Researc!

8P+A)A%,) ) $%E RO4E O* PEER RE9#EW

Peer review is the assessent o! scienti!ic wor$ and research" by others who are experts within

the sae !ield. %he intention o! peer reviewing is to ensure that any research conducted and

published is o! a high and valid &uality.

Peer review serves three ain purposes1

• Allocation of Researc! *"ndin& , Research is paid !or by various governent andcharitable bodies" there!ore public bodies re&uire reviews to enable the to decide which

research is li$ely to be accurate" valid and worthwhile.

• P"blication of Researc! #n )o"rnals - Peer review has been used when publishing

research into journals to help identi!y and prevent any incorrect or !aulty data entering the

public doain.

• Assessin& t!e Researc! Ratin& of +niversities , All universities are expected to conduct

research which is assessed in ters o! its &uality" !uture !unding depends upon the rating

given.

Eval"ation of Peer Review

Stren&t!s 4imitations


5/17

• Peer review gives another way o! validating

data" and provides another sa!ety

precaution again potentially daageable

research being lea$ed into society.

• 9y using researchers within the sae !ield

as the research" it ay produce ore

reliable and accurate results.

Smit! .///2 claied peer review is (slow"

expensive" pro!ligate o! acadeic tie"

highly subjective" prone to bias" easily

abused" poor at detecting gross de!ects

and useless at detecting !raud*.

,t isn4t always possible to !ind an

appropriate expert to review proposed

research" this eans poor research ay be

passed because the review doesn4t

understand.

Reviews do not have to disclose their

identity" which could lead to rivalry.

Synoptic; Peer review !avours publication-

bias as it wants to proote 5valid4 andpositive research.

8P+A)A%,) %3 REPOR$#(< PS='%O4OPER#E($S

All experients involved an ,: ',ndependent :ariable and a D: 'Dependent :ariable. %he ,: is

varied in order to see how this a!!ects the D:" thus deonstrating a relationship.

3hen designing an experient psychologists ust ta$e into account the various easures

'experiental designs which can be used" !or exaple1

• Repeated eas"res - ach participant is tested on all o! the ,:s.

• #ndependent


6/17

• atc!ed Pairs - Participants in an independent group are atched with participants in

another group on $ey variables.

4aboratory Experiment , An experient carried out within a controlled environent.

Advanta&es;

;igh internal validity

because extraneous variables are

controlled.

#ontrol increases

replicability.

Disadvanta&es;

Reduced external/ecological validity and

undane realis because o! the controlled

environent.

xperienter e!!ects 'experienter-bias anddeand characteristics.

*ield Experiment , An experient carried out within a ore natural environent" although soe

!actors ay still be controlled.

Advanta&es;

xperienter e!!ects are

inial.

,ncreasedexternal/ecological validity and undane

realis.

Disadvanta&es;

Deand characteristics are unli$ely but could

still occur due to the controlled !actors ',:.


7/17

(at"ral Experiment , An experient which a$es use o! existing ,:s 'no control.

Advanta&es;

)o experienter e!!ects.

,ncreased

external/ecological validity and undane

realis.

Disadvanta&es;

Participants are not allocated to conditions

which could reduce the experients validity.

)atural studies are hard to replicate.

8P+A)A%,) %3 RESEAR'% E$%ODS

Self-Report et!ods , Psychologists use &uestionnaires and interviews to !ind out what people

thin$ and !eel. %hey can be structured or un-structured 'although structured allows !or better

replication" and !eature open or closed &uestions 'open &uestions producing ore un-expected"

&ualitative data. 0el!-reporting ethods do however !eature deand characteristics as

participants are ore li$ely to portray theselves in a positive light.

Observational St"dies , Psychologists use behavioural categories to record particular instances

o! behaviours" or various sapling ethods" such as1 tie sapling 'recording every


8/17

%hey do however !ail to collate generalised data" and o!ten use retrospective data 'previously

collated data which ay a$e the results unreliable.

eta-Analysis , %his is an analysis o! a range o! studies within the sae topic/!ield" and can be

used to draw overall conclusions and theories. %his can also be used to assess the reliability and

validity o! general theories" odels and approaches.

8P+A)A%,) %;R SAP4#(< $E'%(#?+ES

Opport"nity Samplin& , Participants are selected by using people who are ost easily available"

this is an uch easier and &uic$er way o! gathering participants" but is not representative and

provides no eans o! drawing generalised conclusions.

9ol"nteer Samplin& , Participants are selected by as$ing !or volunteers" which can provide

access to a variety o! participants" a$ing the study ore representative. ;owever by using

volunteers" the saple is ore li$ely to be highly otivated with !ree tie" ipacting again on

generalising the research.

Random Samplin& , Participants are gathered using a rando nuber techni&ue" the target

audience is !irst identi!ied and then each proposed participants given a nuber" this nuber is

then randoly selected by either a lottery-techni&ue '5drawn !ro a hat4 or !ro a rando nuber

generator. %his type o! sapling produced an un-bias saple because everybody has an e&ual

chance o! being selected.

Stratified and ?"ota Samplin& , 0ub-groups 'strata within a population are identi!ied" and a

predeterined nuber o! participants are then selected !ro these groups 'in proportion to their

representation within the population. ,n strati!ied sapling this is done using a rando-nuber

techni&ue" in &uota sapling this is done using opportunity sapling. %his ethod is ore

representative than the others" and is ore li$ely to produce generalised data.

Snowball Samplin& , Participants are !irst identi!ied" and then as$ed to !ind other suitable

participants theselves1 this process then continues until enough participants are gathered. %his

ethod o! gathering participants ay produce biased saples" because the individuals involved

ay only target a liited variety o! population.

Reliability and 9alidity

8P+A)A%,) ) RE4#A@#4#$=

%he reliability o! any ethod o! easureent 'e.g. interview" &uestionnaire re!ers to how

consistent it easures soething. A reliable test will give siilar results" in siilar circustances.

%here are two di!!erent types o! reliability1

#nternal Reliability , %his re!ers to whether a test-ethod is consistently easuring what it

should be. ,t can be iproved using a split-hal! test 'see below.

External Reliability , %his re!ers to how consistent the test-ethod is over tie" whenrepeated in di!!erent situations. ,t can be iproved using a test-retest ethod 'see below.

As entioned above" we can assess the reliability o! a test-ethod using the !ollowing1


9/17

Split-%alf et!od A ethod o! assessing internal reliability by coparing two halves o! a

test-ethod 'e.g. a &uestionnaire to see i! they produce the sae score.

$est-Retest et!od %his assesses external reliability" by coparing the results o! a test given

in two di!!erent situations. ,! a positive correlation is !ound" it has strong

external reliability.

#nter-Rater Reliability %wo or ore observers4 record individual scores on the test/participants"

a!ter coparing the results" i! a positive correlation is !ound there is good

reliability.#ntra-Rater Reliability Re!ers to consistency o! researcher4s behaviour1 should produce siilar

results or a$e siilar observations or carry out interviews in the sae

way in di!!erent occasions.

8P+A)A%,) %3 9A4#D#$=

%he validity o! any ethod o! easureent re!ers to how truly/realistically it easures soething.

A valid test will easure what it is supposed to easure 6 nothing else>

+i$e reliability" there are two di!!erent types o! validity1

• #nternal 9alidity , %he ability o! a study to test the hypothesis that it was designed to test

just by anipulation o! ,:. '?or exaple" i! a anipulated ,: a!!ects an D:" the investigation

has good internal validity.

− *actors affectin& internal validity deand characteristics 'resolved using single-

blind techni&ue" social desirability '!ixed through anonyous &uestionnaire"

experienter bias '!ixed through double-blind techni&ue

•External 9alidity , ;ow uch the !indings o! a test-ethod can be generalised to di!!erentsettings" e.g. the environent 'ecological validity and people 'population validity.

3ays o! controlling validity

Sin&le-blind

tec!niB"e

%he experienter $nows what group a participant is in but the participant

hi/hersel! does not.

Do"ble blind tec!niC %he experienter nor the subjects $now which condition they are in

As entioned above" we can assess the validity o! a test-ethod using the !ollowing1

*ace 9alidity %he test-ethod loo$s li$e it is easuring what it is supposed to.

'onstr"ct 9alidity %he test-ethod tests the theory about the variable it is easuring.'onc"rrent 9alidity %he test-ethod has a strong correlation with an already established

test.

'ontent 9alidity %he test-ethod tests everything 're&uired.

$emporal 9alidity %he test-ethod can be endured over tie and are not era-dependant.

Pop"lation 9alidity %he test-ethod can be generalised to the whole population.

'ontext-Ecolo&ical

9alidity

%he test-ethod can be generalised to the general/natural environent.


10/17

Et!ical #ss"es #n Psyc!olo&ical Researc!

,00@ ) E$%#'A4 #SS+ES W#$% %+A( PAR$#'#PA($S

$!e @PS 78862


11/17

#nte&rity Psychologists ust be accurate and honest.

%he code o! conduct 'above outlines ethical guidelines which psychologists should !ollow1 in

addition to this ethical coittees assess research !or its ethical principles. %hey ay punish

psychologists !or not coplying" and norally o!!er education to psychologists about their duties

as researchers.

Socially Sensitive Researc! , Sieber and Stanley ./552 de!ined socially sensitive research as(studies in which there are potential social conse&uences or iplications" either directly !or the

participants in the research or the class o! individuals represented*.

,00@ %3 E$%#'A4 #SS+ES W#$% (O(-%+A( A(#A4S

W!y +se (on-%"man Animals in Researc!3 , %here are !our ain reasons why researchers

would use non-huan anials in research" they include1

•

0oe researchers want to study anials because they !ind the !ascinating" and generallywant to help the succeed in li!e.

• Anials o!!er the opportunity !or greater control and objectivity in research procedures.

• 3e ay use anials when we can4t use huans" !or exaple ;arlow4s Mon$ey

xperient.

• ;uans and anials have enough o! their physiological and evolutionary past in coon"

that we ay justi!y conclusions drawn !ro experients involving one" to the other.

Although this is still under-debate.

oral )"stification of +sin& Animals in Researc! , %here are three ain arguents to the

justi!ication o! using anials in research" they include1

• Sentient @ein&s , %here is evidence that anials respond to pain" however this is not the

sae as conscious awareness. 0oe priates also show evidence o! conscious

awareness.

• Speciesism , Sin&er .//82 argued that discriination on the basis o! species in no

di!!erent !ro racial or gender discriination" and thus suggests the use o! anials is an

exaple o! speciesis.

• Animal Ri&!ts , Sin&ers view is utilitarian" eaning whatever produces the greater !ood

!or the greater nuber is ethically acceptable. 0o i! anial research can stop pain and

su!!ering it is justi!iable.

'onstraints '"rrently in Place , %he Animal Scientific Proced"res2 Act of ./56" re&uires

that anial research should only be carried out in licensed laboratories" with licensed researchers"

on licensed projects. +icenses are only granted under the !ollowing conditions1

• Potential !indings are iportant enough to justi!y the use o! anials.


12/17

• %he research cannot be done using non-anial ethods.

• %he iniu nuber o! anials is used.

• Any disco!ort or su!!ering is $ept to a iniu.

R"ssel and @irc! ./1/2 also created the three R4s1

® Red"ction 6 @se o! !ewer anials.

® Replacement 6 3here possible use o! alternative ethods should be used.® Refinement 6 @se o! iproved techni&ues to reduce stress.


13/17


14/17

#nferential Analysis Probability and Si&nificance

8P+A)A%,) ) DE*#(#$#O(S

Probability - ,n!erential statistics allow psychologists to loo$ at patterns within results to see i!

they have arisen by chance. ,! it could not have arisen by chance" the pattern is described as

signi!icant.

Si&nificance , ,n order to carry out an in!erential test" you need a null hypothesis ';= which will be

used when results show nothing is !ound and an alternative hypothesis '; which will be used

when results show a correlation/relationship. Results are said to be signi!icant when a large

'signi!icant di!!erence i! !ound between variables and results.

'!ance , ,n!erential tests allow us to deterine whether a pattern in the data" could have arisen

by chance or whether the e!!ect occurred because there was a real di!!erence/correlation. %o do

this a signi!icance level is used 'o!ten pC=.= 6 eaning a probability o! EF that the results are

not due to chance. ,! the research wants to be ore certain" they us a probability level o! pC=.=

'EEF or pC=.== 'EE.EF.

8P+A)A%,) %3 +S#(< #(*ERE($#A4 $ES$S

$ypes of Data , 3hen deciding which test to use you ay need to identi!y the level o!

easureent that was used" these are explained below1

(ominal

Data which can be

categoriGed.

Ordinal

Data which can be ordered and

their position noted'di!!erences ay not be e&ual.

#nterval

Data easured in e&ual

intervals 'coparativenubers/scores are ta$en.

'alc"latin& t!e 'ritical 9al"e - A test statistic calculated !or any set o! data is called the

observed value 'because it is based on the observations/results !ound. %o decide i! this observed

value is signi!icant" it is copared to a critical value '!ound within a critical values table 6 di!!erent

!or every in!erential test.

%o !ind a critical value" you need three pieces o! in!oration1

De&ree of *reedom df2 ,n ost cases this is the nuber o! participants ')" !or

independent group studies there are two values !or )" one !or

each group ) and )2.

One-$ailed or $wo-$ailed $est A one-tailed 'directional hypothesis predicts the direction o!

the results" whereas a two-tailed 'non-directional hypothesis

does not.

Si&nificance 4evel )orally pC=.=.

0oe tests are signi!icant i! the observed value is greater than the critical value" while soe testsare the reverse. %o wor$ out which one we should use" we say1


15/17

(,! there is an R" then the observed value should be gR eateR than the critical value 'e.g.

speaRan4s Rho and chi-s&uaRe. ,! there is no R 'e.g. ann-whitney and wilcoxon then the

observed value should be less than the critical value*.

8P+A)A%,) %;R ERRORS

%here are two ain errors" a type one error and a type two error.

• $ype One Errors *alse-Positive2 , %his occurs when we wrongly accept the alternative

hypothesis 'and thus wrongly reject the null hypothesis" the results are due to chance

there!ore we ust accept the null hypothesis.

%his type o! error is caused by a high signi!icance level 'e.g. =F.

• $ype

$wo

Errors *alse-(e&ative2 , %his occurs when we wrongly accept the null hypothesis 'and

thus wrongly reject the alternative hypothesis" the results are accurate.

%his type o! error is caused by a low signi!icance level 'e.g. F.


16/17

Noinal Data! Chi"S#uared

Correlation!

$ndependent %roups!

Spearan&s Rho

'ann"(hitney )

(ilco*on T

+es

+es

+es

No

No

No

#nferential $ests

8P+A)A%,) ) '%OOS#(< A $ES$

'!i-SB"are

• %he hypothesis predicts a di!!erence

between two conditions or an association

between co-variables.

• Data is independent 'recorded only once.

• Data is noinal 'e.g. in categories not a

percentage.

Spearmans Rho

%he hypothesis predicts a correlation

between two co-variables.

%he two sets o! data are pairs o! scores !ro

one person or thing 'they are related.

%he data are ordinal or interval not noinal.

ann-W!itney U

• %he hypothesis predicts a di!!erence

between two sets o! data.

• %he two sets o! data are !ro separate

groups o! participants 'independent groups.

• %he data are ordinal or interval not noinal.

Wilcoxon T

%he hypothesis predicts a di!!erence

between two sets o! data.

%he two sets o! data are pairs o! scores !ro

one person or a atched-pair 'e.g. related.

%he data are ordinal or interval not noinal.


17/17

?"alitative Data

8P+A)A%,) ) DE*#(#$#O(S

?"antitative Data , %his is data which represents how uch" how long or how any there are o!

soething. ,t is presented in a nuerical !or.

?"alitative Data , %his is any data which is not presented in a nuerical !or. ,t is norallygathered !ro un-structured interviews/&uestionnaires" unstructured observations and case

studies.

8P+A)A%,) %3 ?+A4#$A$#9E DA$A A(A4=S#S

%here are any ways o! analysing &ualitative data" including1 discourse analysis 'studying written

or oral discourses" ethnography 'observing people in their natural environents and ,PA

'understanding how people a$e sense o! their own experiences.

'odin& , %his is a way o! identi!ying categories" thees" phrases or $eywords that ay be !oundin any set o! data. %his is done to help re!ine the researcher4s !indings" and help the be ore

objective in their approach.

%he categories" thees" phrases and $eywords are selected by one o! two approaches1

• $!ematic Analysis $op-Down Approac!2 , #odes represent ideas and concepts !ro an

existing theory/explanation 'e.g. clinical characteristics.

• #9#$=

%he traditional approach in psychology clais that there is one real world" and &uantitative

research see$s to discover that reality 6 validity is a easure o! the extent to which that has beenachieved.

%he &ualitative approach denies the existence o! any one world" claiing each individuals

perspective is reality. Hualitative researchers ac$nowledge the need !or re!lexivity 'the recognition

that a researcher4s attitudes have an in!luence on the research they conduct. :alidity o! this

research ay be deonstrated using triangulation 'coparing the results !ro a variety o! studies

o! the sae thing or person.

psychology revision - research methods topic (1)

Documents