Res Meth Ch 3

Front 1

Theories

Back 1

-statements about a research question

-help organize and unify different observations

-good theories generate predictions about the behavior

Front 2

hypothetical constructs:

Back 2

-variable which is not directly observable.

-e.g, the concepts of intelligence

Front 3

Operational definition:

Back 3

-is a procedure for measuring and defining a construct.

-specifies a measurement procedure for measuring an external, observable behavior

- e.g A researcher measuring happiness and depression in college students decides to use a ten-question happiness scale

Front 4

Validity:

Back 4

- the degree to which the measurement process measures the variable that it claims to measure.

-how accurate a measure is

Front 5

Face validity:

Back 5

-an unscientific form of validity

-demonstrated when a measurement procedure superficially appears to measure what it claims to measure

-if we want to measure intelligence, we need to have a measurement procedure that accurately measures a person's intelligence. Since there are many ways of thinking about intelligence (e.g., IQ, emotional intelligence, etc.), this can make it difficult to come up with a measurement procedure that has strong validity.

Front 6

Concurrent validity:

Back 6

-the extent to which the results of a particular test or measurement correspond to those of a previously established measurement for the same construct.

-when a test correlates well with a measure that has previously been validated

Front 7

Predictive validity:

Back 7

-is demonstrated when scores obtained from a measure accurately predict behavior according to a theory

Front 8

Construct validity:

Back 8

-requires that the scores obtained from a measurement procedure behave exactly the same as the variable itself.

-Construct validity is based on many research studies that use the same measurement procedure and grows gradually as each new study contributes more evidence

Front 9

Convergent validity:

Back 9

- a strong relationship between the scores obtained from two different methods of measuring the same construct

-e.g measure happiness with a likert scale and with a survey and get similar results

Front 10

Divergent validity:

Back 10

-is demonstrated by using two different methods to measure two different constructs.

-Then convergent validity must be shown for each of the two constructs.

-Finally, there should be little or no relationship between the scores obtained for the two different constructs when they are measured by the same method.

Front 11

Reliability:

Back 11

-is the stability or consistency of the measurement.

-If the same individuals are measured under the same conditions, a reliable measurement procedure produces identical (or nearly identical) measurements.

Front 12

Test-retest reliability & Parallel-forms reliability:

Back 12

-by comparing the scores obtained from two successive measurements of the same individuals and calculating a correlation between the two sets of scores.

-If alternative versions of the measuring instrument are used for the two measurements, the reliability measure is called parallel-forms reliability

Front 13

Inter-rater reliability:

Back 13

-is the degree of agreement between two observers who simultaneously record measurements of the behaviors

Front 14

Split-half reliability:

Back 14

- is obtained by splitting the items on a questionnaire or test in half,

-computing a separate score for each half, and then calculating the degree of consistency between the two scores for a group of participants

Front 15

Ceiling effect:

Back 15

- is the clustering of scores at the high end of a measurement scale,

-allowing little or no possibility of increases in value

Front 16

Floor effect:

Back 16

- is the clustering of scores at the low end of a measurement scale,

-allowing little or no possibility of decreases in value

Front 17

Experimenter bias:

Back 17

-occurs when the measurements obtained in a study are influenced by the experimenter’s expectations or personal beliefs regarding the outcome of the study uage

Front 18

Single-blind research:

Back 18

- if the researcher does not know the predicted outcome.

Front 19

Double-blind research:

Back 19

-if both the researcher and the participants are unaware of the predicted outcome.

Front 20

Demand characteristics:

Back 20

- any of the potential cues or features of a study that

(1) suggest to the participants what the purpose and hypothesis is, and

(2) influence the participants to respond or behave in a certain way

Front 21

Reactivity:

Back 21

-occurs when participants modify their natural behavior in response to the fact that they are participating in a research study or the knowledge that they are being measured

Front 22

Good subject role:

Back 22

-These participants have identified the hypothesis of the study and are trying to produce responses that support the investigator’s hypothesis.

-As good as this may sound, we do not want participants to adopt the good subject role because then we do not know if the results of the study extend to individuals who did not adopt such a role

Front 23

Negativistic subject role:

Back 23

-These participants have identified the hypothesis of the study and are trying to act contrary to the investigator’s hypothesis.

- we do not want participants in our study to adopt this role

Front 24

Apprehensivesubject role:

Back 24

-These participants are overly concerned that their performance in the study will be used to evaluate their abilities or personal characteristics.

-They try to place themselves in a desirable light by responding in a socially desirable fashion instead of truthfully.

- we do not want this role because they are not providing truthful responses

Front 25

Faithful subject role:

Back 25

-These participants attempt to follow instructions to the letter and avoid acting on any suspicions they have about the purpose of the study.

-Two types of participants take on this role:

-those who want to help science and know they should not allow their suspicions to enter into their responses,

-and those who are simply apathetic and do not give the study much thought.

-These are the participants we really want in our study

Front 26

Laboratory:

Back 26

-any setting that is obviously devoted to the discipline of science.

-It can be any room or any space that the subject or participant perceives as artificial

Front 27

Field:

Back 27

- a place that the participant or subject perceives as a natural environment