Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
SECTION 2
Notes
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Primary Data | o From the sourceo Eyewitness account |
| Secondary Data | o Heard it through the grapevine “Gossip”o Report |
| Basic Method | -Define problem-Collect data-Written maybe oral data from people |
| Accuracy | Internal evaluation |
| Knowledge | does the source of the expertise needed |
| Time Delay | The gap in time before and after event |
| Bias/Motives Author | The author is trying to porve a point in there document making it biased |
| Consistant across reports | if two people witness something and result is different |
| Authenticity | External evaluation |
| Criticisms of the Method | - Controlo Lack of control- Objectivityo We all see things exactly the same way, way we read the reports, it is very hard to have good objectivity-Validityo Can history generalize? Mostly with external validity |
| Application of Historical Research | - Draw conclusionso What has been doneo What needs to be one- Literature Reviewo Systematic summary and evaluation of a body of literature |
| Historical method | + Explain current behavior+ Predict future behavior+ Based on historical data anlysis |
| Primary data | Data directly from the source, from the person who saw it. |
| Secondary data | o Heard it through the grapevine “Gossip”o Report |
| Authenticity | External evaluation: Control, objectivity, validity |
| Accuracy | Internal evaluation: Knowledge, time delay, Bias/motives, Consistant across reports |
| Literature Review | Systematic summary and evaluation of a body of literature |
| Descriptive method | - Developmental- Observational- Self-report |
| Developmental research | - describe change in behavior and/or mental processes over time |
| Cross-sectional research | study different groups of people at same time. Example: Study development of reading in elemntary school 1st grade, second grade, third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade reading skills |
| Longitudinal research | Study same group of people over time. Example: study development of reading in elemnatary school. Same group of kids over and over as they progress in years. |
| Cohort-sequential research | Combine longitudianl and cross-sectional deisgns. Example: Study development of reading in elemntary school, change over time for both groups of people. |
| Observational research | Sytematic observation of behavior. Operational definition of: clear meaurable and precise definition of variables we are interested in. |
| Quantifying behavior | Frequency method |
| Frequency method | How often soemthing will occur |
| Duration method | How long does the behavior last |
| Interval method | Set up chuncks of time, and record whter the behavior occured during interval |
| Sampling methods | o Time sampling0 Individual samplingo Event sampling |
| Time sampling | data collection is proposed to yield a more representative, economical method for measuring communication as it occurs and a pilot study was conducted. |
| Individual sampling | a number of individuals, items, or events selected from a population for a study preferably in such a way that they represent the larger group from which they were selected. |
| Event sampling | is a new form of sampling method that allows researchers to study ongoing experiences and events that vary across and within days in its naturally-occurring environment. |
| Naturalistic observation | observing and recording behavior in naturally occurring situations without trying to manipulate and control the situation. Ex. noting the number of people who wash their hands when leaving the bathroom from behind a two way mirror. |
| Simulated observation | A fake observation which is observed |
| Case study | A tecnique where one person is studied in depth in hope to find universal prinicples. |
| Participant observation | Such research usually involves a range of methods: informal interviews, direct observation, participation in the life of the group, collective discussions, analyses of personal documents produced within the group, self-analysis, and life-histories. |
| Non-participant observation | Non-participant, or direct, observation is where data are collected by observing behaviour without interacting with the participants |
| Content analysis | the study of recorded human communications, such as books, websites, paintings and laws." It is most commonly used by researchers in the social sciences to analyze recorded transcripts of interviews with participants. |
| Overt observation | Participants know they are being observed and know the data |
| Covert observation | Undercover observation when nobody knows you are watching or observing. When participants dont know data and down know they are being watched. |
| Inter-rater reliability | the degree of agreement among raters. It gives a score of how much homogeneity, or consensus, there is in the ratings given by judges. |
| Observer bias | refers to changes that the act of observing will make on the phenomenon being observed. |
| Halo effect | the tendency to judge somebody as being totally good because one aspect of his or her character is good |
| Response sets | Refers to the tendency to repsond yes or no. |
| Observee bias | |
| Hawthorne effect | a short-term improvement caused by observing worker performance |
| Self-report research | The success that attended the use of convenient intelligence tests in providing reliable, quantitative (numerical) indexes of individual ability has stimulated interest in the possibility of devising similar tests for measuring personality. |
| Structured | single yes or no questions, easy to answer |
| Semi-structured | more freedom of answers |
| Unstructured | like essay questions where you have complete freedom to put whatever, scoring is very very hard to do. |
| Survey research | |
| Interview research | - face to face- smaller sample- Expensive- Possibility of bias- Problems with recording of data |
| Rate of response | The rate at which a participants respondes to a question |
| Non-response | No answer |
| Population | the larger group that the sample was derived from |
| Sample | a number of individuals, items, or events selected from a population for a study preferably in such a way that they represent the larger group from which they were selected. |
| Sample Size | the larger the population, the smaller the % of the population required to get a representative sample |
| Nonrandom Sampling | process of selecting a sample using a technique that does not permit the researcher to specify the probability or chance. |
| Convenience Sampling | the process of including whoever happens to be available at the time (seeking volunteers and studying existing groups). |
| Random sampling | is the best way to obtain a representative sample, although no technique quarantees a representative sample. (required for many statistical analyses). |
| Simple Random Sampling | is the process of selecting a sample in such a way that all individuals in the defined population have an equal and independent chance of selection for the sample. |
| Stratified Sampling | is a way to quarantee desired representation of relevant subgroups within the sample. |
| Cluster Sampling | intact groups, not individuals, are randomly selected. |
| Systematic Sampling | sampling in which every Kth individual is selected from a list. |
| Nuremberg Code | is a set of principles for human experimentation set as a result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War. Specifically, they were in response to the inhumane Nazi human experimentation carried out during the war by individuals |
| APA Ethical Guidelines | Developed in response to WWII atrocitieso 10 points |
| Health and Human Services Guidelines | |
| Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment | were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,”1 their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all. |
| Jewish Chronic Hospital | Injected patients with cancer to research on it. Did not tell patients |
| Milgram Obedience Experiment | Press a button to give the patient a electric shock, and you would continue to press it no matter what. |
| Zimbardo (Stanford) Prison Experiment | Prisoners and prison guards roles were assigned to different undergrades. Took to serious and became almost torture. |
| Nazi Human Experiments | Testing on victims of war making them suffer horrible wounds then try to cure. |
| S.G. Soal Parapsychology Experiment | ESP study were he lied about his cards. ANd cheated |
| Institutional Review Board | + Memberso From institution, doing human researcho From institution, not doing researcho Outside of institution, no affiliation with IRB |
| Informed Consent | is a legal condition whereby a person can be said to have given consent based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications and future consequences of an action. |
| Confidentiality | some types of communication between a person and one of these professionals are "privileged" and may not be discussed or divulged to third parties. |
| Anonymity | the term typically refers to a person, and often means that the personal identity, or personally identifiable information of that person is not known. |
| Deception | is the act of convincing another to believe information that is not true, or not the whole truth as in certain types of half-truths. |
| Validity | is valid if the truth of premises entails the truth of conclusion, it would be self-contradictory to affirm the conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradition. |
| Content validity | Degree that a test measures the intended content. exam that would reflect what it is supposed to have on it. |
| Item validity | Whether test items represent content area. Focus is on each individual question. |
| Sampling validity | Whether the entire test reflects content validity |
| Face validity | Lowest form of validity, also refered as surface validity, just looking at surface, we ask ourselves does it look right? Only be used as perliminary anaylysis. Truely test validity use other assessments. |
| Construct validity | Degree that a test measures a hypothetical construct. Hypothetical consturct is a nonobservable trait. Measure outcome of consturct, not actual construct. |
| Concurrent validity | Degree that test scores are related to scores on another test. |
| Predictive validity | Degree that a test can predict an outcome. Used in classificationa nd selection of indiduals. Use prediciton studys. |
| Reliability | The extent to which a test or procedure produces the same result with repeated administrations |
| Test-retest reliability | If you were to take a test similar to the first would the results be close to the same |
| Equivalent-forms reliability | the consistency of measurement based on the correlation between scores on two similar forms of the same test taken by the same individual. See: reliability coefficient. |
| Split-half reliability | A measure of consistency where a test is split in two and the scores for each half of the test is compared with one another. If the test is consistent it leads the experimenter to believe that it is most likely measuring the same thing. |
| Interrater reliability | is the degree of agreement among raters. It gives a score of how much homogeneity, or consensus, there is in the ratings given by judges. |
Created by:
fanettij
Popular Psychology sets