Quals: Research Design (Concepts)

Front 1

Idiographic

Back 1

Understanding individual as unique, complex entity (Ponterotto, 2005)

Front 2

Nomothetic

Back 2

Uncovering general patterns of behavior that have a normative base (Ponterotto, 2005)

Front 3

Etic

Back 3

Universal laws and behaviors that apply to all humans (Ponterotto, 2005)

Front 4

Emic

Back 4

Constructs/behaviors unique to an individual, sociocultural context (Ponterotto, 2005)

Front 5

4 philosophical approaches

Back 5

Positivism, postpositivism, constructivism-interpretivism, critical-ideological

Front 6

Meaning is hidden, must be brought to surface through deep reflection

Back 6

Hermeneutical approach (Ponterotto, 2005)

Front 7

Counterbalanced design

Back 7

Enter all subjects into all treatment conditions at some point (one group gets treatment A then treatment B, the other group gets the reverse), and observe before and after each treatment (Campbell & Stanley, 1963)

Front 8

Nonequivalent control group design

Back 8

Two groups, both get pre and post-test, one doesn’t get treatment (Campbell & Stanley, 1963)

Front 9

Equivalent time-samples design

Back 9

Observations paired with treatment implementation several times (Campbell & Stanley, 1963)

Front 10

Simple interrupted time series-

Back 10

Many observations before and after treatment is implemented (100 observations recommended)

Front 11

Regression discontinuity designs

Back 11

Control assignment of participants to two or more treatment conditions with a posttest based on cutoff score on assignment variable, compare between the regression lines. The posttest lines should have the same slope and intercept unless a treatment effect is seen. (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 12

Translational research

Back 12

Research that links clinical intervention with basic science (Strauman & Merrill, 2004)

Front 13

Culture

Back 13

Highly variable systems of meaning which are learned and shared by a people, designs and ways of life that are normally transmitted from one generation to another. (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993)

Front 14

Race

Back 14

Generally physical and biological features. High within-group variance. (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993)

Front 15

Ethnicity

Back 15

Groups characterized by common nationality, culture, or language (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993)

Front 16

Translation equivalence

Back 16

multi-step process in which translation is followed by back translation, comparison of two versions, revision of translation and so forth (Okazaki & Sue, 1995)

Front 17

Conceptual equivalence

Back 17

whether the psychological construct under investigation holds the same meanings in two or more cultural groups (Okazaki & Sue, 1995)

Front 18

Metric equivalence

Back 18

assumption that the same metric can be used to measure the same concept in two or more cultures (Okazaki & Sue, 1995)

Front 19

3 feminist epistemologies

Back 19

Feminist empiricism, feminist standpoint theory, feminist postmodernists (Campbell & Wasco, 2000)

Front 20

Trustworthiness criteria

Back 20

Credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmabiity (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)

Front 21

Authenticity criteria (5)

Back 21

Fairness, ontological authenticity, educative authenticity, catalytic authenticity, tactical authenticity (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)

Front 22

Core tenents of pragmatism

Back 22

Lines of action, warranted assertions, workability (Morgan, 2007)

Front 23

validity is not a property of methods- it is

Back 23

it is a property of the inferences drawn from methods (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)

Front 24

Type II errors

Back 24

False negatives—concluding that there is no effect when there really is an effect

Front 25

Type I errors

Back 25

- False positives—concluding that there is an effect, when one really doesn’t exist

Front 26

2 types of structure of constructs

Back 26

Latent and manifest (Ruscio & Ruscio, 2004)

Front 27

Hypothetical constructs

Back 27

Hypotheses of unobserved entities or processes. We make inferences about hypothetical constructs (Kozak & Miller, 1982)

Front 28

Intervening variables

Back 28

Methodologically rigorous concepts that contain no information beyond their data, lack predictive and explanatory power when applied to new situations (i.e., situations not included in the study) (Kozak & Miller, 1982)

Front 29

Basic requirements for all causal relationships

Back 29

1) cause precedes effect, 2) cause covaries with effect, ) alternative explanations are implausible (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 30

empirically supported treatment

Back 30

interventions or techniques that have produced therapeutic change in controlled trials (Kazdin, 2008)

Front 31

evidence-based practice

Back 31

clinical practice that is informed about interventions, clinical expertise, and patient needs, values, and preferences (Kazdin, 2008)

Front 32

Efficacy Studies

Back 32

Well-controlled treatment studies (such as RCTs) that aim to establish a causal relationship and demonstrate that a treatment works (Kazdin, 2008)

Front 33

Effectiveness Studies

Back 33

Studies of therapy performed in the “real world” (settings in which they will be applied) (Kazdin, 2008)

Front 34

cutural competence

Back 34

synthesis and application of previously gained cultural awareness, cultural knowledge and cultural sensitivity (Papadopoulos, 2002)

Front 35

Sobel test

Back 35

Multiply the effect of IV on mediator to effect of mediator on DV, then divide by estimated standard error. Compare this value to standard normal distribution. (Sobel, 1982)

Front 36

causal steps

Back 36

Estimate these regression equations, looking for significant relationships: 1 – mediator on independent variable, 2 – regress dependent variable on independent variable, 3 – regress dependent variable on both independent variable and mediator (Baron & Kenny, 1986)

Front 37

Mediator

Back 37

Mechanism through which IV affects DV. HOW or WHY effects occur. (Baron & Kenny, 1986)

Front 38

Moderator

Back 38

Affects strength/direction of relationship between IV and DV. Causal relationship between IV and DV changes as function of moderator (e.g., gender). Speak to WHEN effects hold. (Baron & Kenny, 1986)

Front 39

Look for moderation when

Back 39

there’s a weak relationship between IV and DV

Front 40

Look for mediation when

Back 40

There's a strong relationship between IV and DV

Front 41

4 methods of evaluating clinical significance

Back 41

comparison method, no longer meeting diagnostic criteria, subjective evaluation, social impact measures

Front 42

Bayesian estimation

Back 42

Takes into account the prior probabilities of the possible hypotheses, combines them with the available evidence, and yields the probability of the given claim being correct (Frick, 1996)

Front 43

Confidence intervals

Back 43

Assess the probability that a parameter lies within a particular range of values (Frick, 1996). It allows the researcher to estimate the degree to which (i.e., probability) the observed value (or difference) is likely to be the true value

Front 44

Effect size

Back 44

Indicates how much variation in the operationalization of the independent variable(s) is accounted for by the dependent variable(s).

Front 45

5 criticisms of NHST

Back 45

impossible to have equal means, arbitrary, affected by sample size, often misinterpreted, can't assert the null (Cohen, 1994)

Front 46

p value

Back 46

The probability of achieving the observed outcome or larger, given the null hypothesis (Frick, 1996)

Front 47

4 alternatives to ANCOVA

Back 47

Incorporate covariate as IV, propensity score, meta analysis, placement of group means on regression line

Front 48

T-test

Back 48

Looks at the difference in means of a continuous variable between two groups

Front 49

Regression

Back 49

Statistical model that you use to predict a continuous outcome on the basis of one or more continuous predictor variables

Front 50

ANOVA

Back 50

Statistical model that you use to predict a continuous outcome on the basis of one or more categorical predictor variables

Front 51

Correlation

Back 51

Looks at the linear relationship between two continuous variables

Front 52

Chi-square

Back 52

Looks at the difference between two categorical variables or goodness-of-fit for one qualitative variable

Front 53

three types of case study strategies

Back 53

within-series, between-series, combined-series

Front 54

3 classic nonreactive methods

Back 54

physical traces, archival data, simple observations (Eid & Diener, 2005)

Front 55

most important criterion of nonreactivity

Back 55

non-awareness of the subjects participating in the research (Webb et al.)

Front 56

Regression Discontinuity Designs

Back 56

Participant (units) are assigned to a group (conditions) based on whether or not they meet a predetermined cutoff score (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 57

Simple interrupted time series

Back 57

many observations before and after treatment is implemented (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 58

Sequential observation

Back 58

application of predefined coding schemes to sequences of live or recorded behavior (or transcripts of behavior) based on rules and with attention to observer reliability (Bakeman & Gnisci, 2005)

Front 59

Experience Sampling Method

Back 59

collect info in the moment following an electronically administered signal. [DeVries (1992)]

Front 60

6 factors that affect recall judgment

Back 60

recency, peak, effort, summary, immediate context, person factors (Stone & Lichter-Kelly, 2005)

Front 61

reliability

Back 61

degree to which test scores are free from errors of measurement." (APA,1985)

Front 62

Ecological validity

Back 62

Extent to which environment experienced by subjects has properties it is supposed or assumed to have by researcher (Bronfenbrenner, 1979)

Front 63

Predictive validity

Back 63

Used for the purpose of forecasting

Front 64

Criterion validity

Back 64

A measure achieves criterion validity to the extent that it corresponds to an accurate criterion of interest. Can the tester measure serve as a stand in for the measure we are really interested in. (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)

Front 65

Divergent validity

Back 65

evidence that a test measures something different from other tests. Evidence that we are measuring a unique construct. (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)

Front 66

Concurrent validity

Back 66

Predicting how well the person will do right away. (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)

Front 67

Convergent validity

Back 67

measures of the same construct converge. (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)

Front 68

Content Related Validity

Back 68

extent to which a measure provides an adequate representation of the conceptual domain it is designed to cover. (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)

Front 69

Face validity

Back 69

mere appearance that a measure has validity (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)

Front 70

Statistical conclusions validity

Back 70

(Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002): Statistical conclusion validity concerns 2 related statistical inferences that affect the covariation component of causal inferences: 1) whether the presumed causes and effect covary and 2) how strongly they covary

Front 71

Twin problems of construct validity

Back 71

Understanding Constructs, Assessment of Sampling Particulars (Shadish, Cook & Campbell, 2002)

Front 72

External validity concerns

Back 72

inferences about the extent to which a causal relationship holds over variations in persons, settings, treatments, and outcomes (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 73

Statistical regression (to the mean)

Back 73

When units are selected for their extreme scores, they will often have less extreme scores on other variables, an occurrence that can be confused with a treatment (treatment) effect (Campbell & Stanley, 1963)

Front 74

Internal validity

Back 74

validity of inference about whether the observed covariation between A (presumed treatment) and B (presumed outcome) reflects a causal relationship from A to B as those variables were manipulated or measured. (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 75

methodology vs. methods

Back 75

Methodology is the philosophical framework and fundamental assumptions; methods are the techniques of data collection and analysis (Creswell, 2006)

Front 76

Nature of reality and being

Back 76

ontology (Ponterotto, 2002)

Front 77

Study of knowledge, acquisition of knowledge, relationship between participant and researcher

Back 77

epistemology (Ponterotto, 2002)

Front 78

Role and place of values in the research process

Back 78

axiology (Ponterotto, 2002)

Front 79

ontology

Back 79

Nature of reality and being (Ponterotto, 2002)

Front 80

epistemology

Back 80

Study of knowledge, acquisition of knowledge, relationship between participant and researcher (Ponterotto, 2002)

Front 81

axiology

Back 81

Role and place of values in the research process (Ponterotto, 2002)

Front 82

Solomon four-group design

Back 82

Assigned randomly to one of four groups. Two get treatment, two do not. One of each of these groups gets a pretest and one does not. (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 83

Independent pretest sample

Back 83

A group that is drawn randomly from the same population as the posttest sample but that may have overlapping membership. This group is used when it is impossible or not desirable to pretest data on the same sample both before and after treatment. (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002

Front 84

Proxy pretests

Back 84

Measure variables that are conceptually related to and correlated with the posttest within treatments. (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 85

Regression extrapolation

Back 85

Type of contrast- Compares actual and projected posttest scores (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 86

Normed comparison

Back 86

Type of contrast- Compares treatment recipients to normed samples (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)

Front 87

Secondary data

Back 87

Type of contrast- Compares treatment recipients to samples drawn from previously gathered data, such as case records or population based surveys. (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 88

Stratifying

Back 88

Occurs when units are placed into homogeneous sets that contain more units than the experiment has conditions. (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 89

3 threats to validity addressed by pretest

Back 89

Instrumentation, regression, history (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 90

3 ways to improve the untreated control group design with dependent pretest and posttest samples (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Back 90

Double pretest, switching replications, reversed-treatment control group (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 91

2 types of attrition

Back 91

Measurement and treatment (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 92

2 analyses taking implementation into account

Back 92

Intent to treat analysis, amount of treatment actually received analysis (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 93

Intent-to-treat analysis

Back 93

Participants are analyzed as if they received the treatment to which they were assigned (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 94

Amount of treatment actually received analysis

Back 94

Compares outcomes of those who received treatments in comparison to those who did not (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 95

3 types of correlational designs

Back 95

Retrospective, cross-sectional, ex-post facto (Campbell & Stanley, 1963)

Front 96

3 aspects of ethnicity that may account for its psycholoogical importance

Back 96

culture, identity, minority status (Phinney, 1996)

Front 97

The process of feminist research is characterized by four primary features

Back 97

Quant + qual, connecting women for group-level data collection, reducing hierarchical relationship, recognizing/reflecting on emotionality of women's lives (Campbell & Wasco, 2000)

Front 98

Feminist standpoint theory

Back 98

claims that class, race, gender, and sexual orientation structure a person’s understanding of reality. Feminist standpoint research utilizes a variety of methodologies (e.g., both qualitative and quantitative approaches) to engage research participants (typically members of oppressed groups) in reflection on how their gender, race, social class, and sexual orientation shape their experiences in the social world (Campbell & Wasco, 2000)

Front 99

Feminist postmodernists

Back 99

reject the notion that there is a single truth or reality, in any form. They question whether there can ever be a feminist science, and instead view the world as endless stories or texts, many of which serve to sustain the status quo of power and oppression. (Campbell & Wasco, 2000)

Front 100

5 criteria for saying "X is a gene for Y"

Back 100

Strength of association, specificity of relationship, noncontingency of effect, causal proximity of X to Y, degree to which is appropriate level of explanation for Y (Kendler, 2005)

Front 101

If MZ > DZ

Back 101

strong evidence that there’s a role for genes (Gottesman, 1991)

Front 102

Credibility

Back 102

Matching constructed realities of respondents to the realities represented by the evaluator. Paralleled to internal validity (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)

Front 103

Negative case analysis

Back 103

Revising working hypotheses in the light of new information (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)

Front 104

Progressive Subjectivity

Back 104

The researcher should check themselves often to ensure that they are not privileging their own ideas at the expensive of what is actually in the data. (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)

Front 105

Member Checks

Back 105

Bring participants together and present findings to see how these resonate with their experience (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)

Front 106

Transferability

Back 106

How well findings transfer across context. Parallel to external validity. Differs in that the burden of proof for claimed transferability is on the receiver (opposed to on the researcher, as in positivist framework) (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)

Front 107

Dependability

Back 107

Stability of data over time. Parallel to reliability (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)

Front 108

Confirmability

Back 108

Findings are rooted in contexts and persons other than the evaluator. Parallel to objectivity. This is not about the method, as objectivity is, but rather about the findings (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)

Front 109

Fairness

Back 109

"the extent to which different constructions and their underlying value structures are solicited and honored within the evaluation process." (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)

Front 110

Ontological authenticity

Back 110

the extent to which individual respondents' own emic constructions are improved, matured, expanded, and elaborated (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)

Front 111

Educative authenticity

Back 111

the extent to which individual respondents’ understanding of and appreciation for the constructions of others outside their stakeholding group are enhanced. (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)

Front 112

Catalytic authenticity

Back 112

the extent to which action is stimulated and facilitated by the evaluation processes (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)

Front 113

Tactical authenticity

Back 113

the degree to which stakeholders and participants are empowered to act. (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)

Front 114

lines of action

Back 114

actual behavior (Morgan, 2007)

Front 115

warranted assertions

Back 115

Beliefs behind behaviors (Morgan, 2007)

Front 116

workability

Back 116

the consequences that are likely to follow from different behaviors (Morgan, 2007)

Front 117

Mental model

Back 117

constellation of assumptions, theoretical commitments, experiences, and values through which a social inquirer conducts his/her research/work (Greene, 2007)

Front 118

2 mixed methods approaches

Back 118

Concurrent, sequential (Creswell & Clark, 2007)

Front 119

Convergence (MM design)

Back 119

Using two or more methods to measure the same phenomena, where the sequence of implementation is concurrent, with a purpose of triangulation (Greene, 2007)

Front 120

Extension (MM design)

Back 120

Using two or more methods to measure different phenomena, where the sequence of implementation is variable, with a purpose of expansion (Greene, 2007)

Front 121

Iteration (MM design)

Back 121

Sequential implementation of two or more methods, each given equal weight, for the purpose of development (Greene, 2007)

Front 122

Blending (MM design)

Back 122

Concurrent implementation of two or more methods, each given equal weight, for the purpose of complementarity or initiation (Greene, 2007)

Front 123

Nesting (MM design)

Back 123

Concurrent implementation of two or more methods, where one is given primary status, for the purposes of complementarity or initiation (Greene, 2007)

Front 124

Substantive (MM design)

Back 124

Sequential or concurrent implementation of two or more methods, each given equal weight, for a variety of purposes (Greene, 2007)

Front 125

Triangulation (MM purpose)

Back 125

Convergence, corroboration, correspondence of results from different methods (Greene et al., 1989)

Front 126

Complementarity (MM purpose)

Back 126

Elaboration, enhancement, illustration of the results from one method with the results of another method (Greene et al., 1989)

Front 127

Development (MM purpose)

Back 127

Uses results from one method to help develop or inform the other method (Greene et al., 1989)

Front 128

Initiation (MM purpose)

Back 128

Questions or results from one method are recast based on questions or results from the other method, toward the goal of paradox (Greene et al., 1989)

Front 129

Expansion (MM purpose)

Back 129

Different methods used for different inquiry components toward extending breadth or range of inquiry(Greene et al., 1989)

Front 130

Purist (MM paradigm)

Back 130

Paradigms incommensurable and cannot be mixed (Greene, 2008)

Front 131

A-paradigmatic (MM paradigm)

Back 131

Practical considerations should guide the nature of mixing (Greene, 2008)

Front 132

Substantive theory (MM paradigm)

Back 132

Concepts and theories from research area should guide approach (Greene, 2008)

Front 133

Complementary strengths (MM paradigm)

Back 133

Use multiple paradigms in one study, but keep them separate (Greene, 2008)

Front 134

Dialectic (MM paradigm)

Back 134

Use multiple paradigms in one study, and juxtapose them intentionally (Greene, 2008)

Front 135

Statistical conclusion validity

Back 135

Appropriate use of statistics to infer whether the presumed independent and dependent variables covary (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 136

Internal validity

Back 136

Did the covariation result from a causal relationship (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 137

Construct validity

Back 137

The validity of inferences about the higher order constructs that represent sampling particulars (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 138

Interaction of the causal relationship with units

Back 138

An effect found with certain kinds of units might not hold if other kinds of units had been studied (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 139

Interaction of the causal relationship over treatment variations

Back 139

An effect found with one treatment variation might not hold with other variations of that treatment, or when that treatment is combined with other treatments, or when only part of that treatment is used (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 140

Interaction of the causal relationship with outcomes

Back 140

An effect found on one kind of outcome observation may not hold if other outcome observations were used (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 141

Interactions of the causal relationship with settings

Back 141

An effect found in one kind of setting may not hold if other kinds of settings were to be used (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 142

Context dependent mediation

Back 142

An explanatory mediator of a causal relationship in one context may not mediate in another context (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)

Front 143

3 ways to improve the untreated control group design with dependent pretest and posttest samples

Back 143

Double pretest, switching replications, reversed-treatment control group (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)