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
Exam 1 - PSY 305
Question for exam 1 in research method
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Description | characteristics portrayal of a situation or phenomena |
| explanation | determine causes of a phenomenon |
| prediction | ability to anticipate the occurrence of an event |
| control | manipulations of the conditions that determine the phenomena |
| Course goal 1 | Represent and summarize theories, explanations, or hypotheses |
| course goal 2 | Represent and summarize the results of sturdies |
| course goal 3 | evaluate and critique the quality of the studies |
| Case study | in depth descriptive study of one (or few) using observation, interview, and testing |
| Advantages of Case study? | rare/unusual information, rich exploratory data for later hypotheses |
| Weakness of Case Study? | low generalizability, timely, misinterpretation |
| Naturalistic observation | researcher observes what happens in the natural world as systematically and objectively as possible |
| Advantages of Naturalistic observation? | rich descriptive data, real and authentic, hypotheses for later testing |
| weaknesses of naturalistic observation? | observer bias, researcher may influence behavior, little control |
| Laboratory observation | researcher systematically and objectively observes what happens in a more controlled setting with more sophisticated equitment |
| Advantage of Lab Observation | rich descriptive data, hypotheses for later testing |
| Weakness of Lab Observation | observer bias, researcher may influence behavior, little control, less natural behavior |
| correlational design | researcher strategy designed to determine how two or more variable relate. researchers do not manipulate variables and cannot make causal conclusions. |
| Advantage of correlational design? | shows strength between two variables, hypotheses for later testing, good for unethical/impossible manipulation |
| Weakness of correlation design? | third variable problems, directionality problem |
| Quasi-experimental design | when it is impossible, impractical, or unethical to manipulate a variable, researcher may rely on differences that occur naturally and use those differences to for groups and perform studies. |
| Advantages of Quasi? | shows strength between two variables, hypotheses for later testing, good for unethical/impossible manipulation |
| Weakness of Quasi? | third variable problem, directionality problem |
| Experimental design | researcher systematically manipulates one of more variables and measures the effects of this manipulation on other variables while controlling influence of extraneous variables |
| Strength of Experimental design? | allows for causal statements, best level of control |
| weakness of experimental design? | findings may not always generalize to outside world |
| 3rd variable problems | two variables may be correlated not because X causes Y or Y causes X but correlation may be due to Z variable which causes both X and Y to occur |
| Directionality problem | not able to make causational claims (in correlational design) because it is unclear whether variable X causes variable Y or if variable Y causes Variable X |
| what is a hypothesis | a testable relationship between two or more variables (constructs) |
| Define the 3 elements of a hypothesis | independent variable, dependent variable, and type of relationship between variables (correlational or causaltional) |
| How do hypotheses and predictions differ? | a hypothesis identifies a possible relationship between two or more variables while a prediction operationalizes the constructs within a hypothesis to create a specific testable test |
| constructs | are behaviors motives attitudes ideas concepts intended to explain and understand (general concept) |
| problem | are often unobservable |
| solution | infer unobservable constructs from observable behaviors and responses |
| operational definitions | a definition of the variable in terms of precisely how it is to be measured |
| what is Box 1 of a causal model called | innating factor |
| what is box 2 of a causal model called | mechanism |
| what is the third box of a causal model called | outcome |
| why are causal models important? | they can help us to read about or write out theories in a simpler/easier to read way and allows someone to examine parts of a theory or theories of a study tested. |
| the 3 parts of a causal model | the innating factor which leads to a mechanism that leads to an outcome behavior (initiating factor, mechanism, outcome) |
| Sections of an APA style paper in order | Title page, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, references, tables, and figures. |
| Title page includes: | title, authors names, affiliations, plus heading components |
| abstract includes: | brief but complete summary of paper (1-2 sentences per section) |
| Introduction includes | provide background and motivation for experiment as well as specific hypotheses and predictions |
| method includes | the way in which the study was conducted |
| results include | outcome of the experiment by detailed listing of statistically significant results |
| discussion includes | restatement and interpretation of results taking special care tying results into theory and related literature |
| reference includes | all (and only) papers specifically mentioned in the paper |
| table includes | numbers or text segmented in rows and columns to clarify of highlight methods or results |
| figures include | graphs, diagrams, or pictures to clarify or highlight point |
| elements of a model for a journal article summary | 0. citation of article for reader, 1. introduction, 2. methods, 3. results, and 4. discussion |
| what is plagiarism | to steal or pass of (the idea or words of another) as one's own |
| common ways people plagiarize | changing one or few words with synonyms, simply rearranging the words or phrases, re-writing key sentences in the same order or reordering sentences, or omitting a few words, |
| how to avoid plagiarism | must read for understanding of an article, take bullet point notes, summarize most important points in your own words, and go back to double check that you did not plagiarize |
| basic research | conducted for the sake of achieving a more detailed and accurate understanding of human behavior, without necessarily trying to address any particular practical problem |
| Applied research | conducted primarily to address some practical problem |
| folk psychology | intuitive beliefs about people's behaviors, thoughts, and feelings |
| Variable | quantity or quality that varies across people or situations |
| population | very large group of people |
| sample | small subset of the population |
| test re-test reliability | the extent to which a result is actually the case |
| split-half reliability | separating items or results into sets then score these items and compare scores to assess if underlying construct is being measure the same for both |
| interrater reliability | extent to which different observers are consistent in their judgement |
| reliability | consistency of a measure |
| test validity | extent to which the scores from a measure represent the variable they are intended to |
| ceiling effects | when performance on DV reaches level that cannot be exceeded (everyone gets 95-100% correct) |
| floor effect | when performance on DV does not exceed a minimal level (everyone gets 5-10% correct) |
| converging measures | best evidence comes from more than a single method of measurement because each measure has some limits |
| criterion-related validity | extent to which measure allows distinctions among participants on some behavioral standard |
| construct validity | extent to which a test or measurement accurately reflects the theoretical construct it is intended to measure (the degree to which test measures the construct it is supposed to measure) |
| content validity | extent to which a measure reflects the actual material, substance, or content of the variables measured |
| test-retest reliability | agreement over a specified period of time |
| split-half reliability | agreement among different parts internal consistency (set of 10 questions split into 2 groups of 5) |
| Face validity | (the degree to which) test appears to measure what it is supposed to measure |
| interrater reliability | agreement between two sources at the same time (two researchers scoring same test on child) |
| What statistic is frequently used to establish reliability | Cohen's k (Kappa) |
| 4 levels of measurement | nominal, ordinal, interval, ration |
| Nominal level | used for categorical variables and involves assigning scores that are category labels |
| ordinal level | used for assigning scores so that they represent the rank order or individuals |
| interval level | measurement used to assing scores, 0 does not represent absensce of a characterisitc |
| ration level | involves assigning scores in such a way that there is a true zero point that represent absence of a quality |
| what is a causal model | diagram of the causes of constructs within a theory or explanation |
Created by:
AnnaMoore274