Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
9 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
MAXMINCON |
Kerlinger's principal: maximize the systematic variance of the variables under study, minimize error variance, control extraneous variables extraneous variables and error variance can mask or obscure the effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable |
|
|
between group design |
adheres to the MAXMINCON principal (true experimental designs due to the emphasis on experimental control and internal validity) comparison of variables across two or more groups under controlled experimental conditions to make comparisons across groups requires that groups don't differ in important ways (ind diffs must be minimized to reduce threats to internal validity) Usually includes random selection and must include random assignment It is an experimental design where an Independent Variable (IV) is manipulated using different participants. Each participant is only used once. Participants are divided into different groups. Each group is exposed to a certain experimental condition. The results from each group are compared to those of other groups to examine the differences, and accordingly the effect of Independent Variable. |
|
|
three common between group designs |
Post-test only control group design pre-test, post-test control group design solomon four-group design |
|
|
Post-test only control group design |
The posttest-only control group design is a research design in which the research participants are randomly assigned to an experimental and control group and then post tested on the dependent variable after the experimental group has received the experimental treatment condition strengths: controls for most threats to internal validity weaknesses: absence of pre-test can present problems - threat to external validity, can't generalize; exp and control conds must be conducted simultaneously to control for Hx effects, so more strain & time for experimenter |
|
|
pre-test, post-test control group design |
purpose: random assignment to two or more groups, with one group receiving the treatment while the other group receives no treatment (as the control group) strengths: controls for most threats to validity, various analyses are able to be made that may be helpful in making valid inference about the effects of the IV, pre-test scores can be used to reduce variability in the DV, can use stat tests like ANCOVA to remove variance found in pre-test from the variance in post-tests...read more in Heppner Chs weaknesses: pretest is also a weakness (sensitizing effect - can compromise external validity - don't know if changes in post-test scores are due to the IV or from pretest sensitizing) |
|
|
solomon four-group design |
purpose: when there is a desire to use a pretest but some concern exists about the effect it may have on participants. ~combo of pretest-posttest control group design & posttest only control group design strengths: controls for the most threats to internal validity - strengths of both the pre-post & post only designs, examines the potential sensitizing effect of the pretest as it might interact with the Tx, researcher can test for sensitization by comparing O2 to O5, includes replication of the Tx intervention enhancing generalizability (external validity) weaknesses: costs the investigator time, energy, and resources, ethical regard to control group only |
|
|
within subjects designs |
attempts to minimize error variance due to ind variation by having each participant serve as her or his own control b/c all participants are exposed to all of the treatment conditions A within-subjects design is an experiment in which the same group of subjectsserves in more than one treatment. Note that I'm using the word "treatment" to refer to levels of the independent variable, rather than "group". often called a true experimental design b/c of the random assignment of treatments and manipulation of the IV (the RA is to a time period in which the treatments are delivered) |
|
|
types of within subjects designs |
crossover designs latin square |
|
|
within subjects designs (S/W) |
strengths: doesn't require a large pool of participants, help reduce errors associated with individual differences (Each participant serves as his or her own baseline) weaknesses: sheer act of having participants take part in one condition can impact performance or behavior on all other conditions, a problem known as a carryover effect, Fatigue is another potential drawback of using a within-subjects design. Participants may become exhausted, bored or simply disinterested after taking part in multiple treatments or tests; performance on subsequent tests can also be impacted by practice effects |
