Research Methods Term Test #1

Front 1

Method of tenacity

Back 1

a method of acquiring knowledge in which information is accepted as true because it has always been believed or because superstition supports it; AKA belief perseverance; e.g., opposites attract.

Front 2

Method of intuition

Back 2

a method of acquiring knowledge in which information is accepted on the basis of a hunch or “gut feeling”.

Front 3

Method of authority

Back 3

a method of acquiring knowledge in which a person relies on information or answers from an expert in the subject area; can be biased + generalized (sports star selling nutrition).

Front 4

Method of faith

Back 4

a variant of the method of authority in which people have unquestioning trust in the authority figure and, therefore, accept information from the authority without doubt of challenge.; e.g., religion.

Front 5

Rational method/rationalism

Back 5

a method of acquiring knowledge that involves seeking answers by the use of logical reasoning; e.g., all 3 yr olds are afraid of the dark – Amy is 3 – therefore, Amy is afraid of the dark.; assumption cannot be made unless both premise statements are absolutely true, other factors can be at play, people suck at logic.

Front 6

Premise statements

Back 6

sentences used in logical reasoning that describe facts or assumptions; e.g., all 3 yr olds are afraid of the dark – Amy is 3 years old.

Front 7

Empirical method/empiricism

Back 7

a method of acquiring knowledge in which observation and direct sensory experience re used to obtain knowledge; eat noodles that are worms…delicious, but empiricism competing with tenacity.

Front 8

Induction/inductive reasoning

Back 8

the use of a relatively small set of specific observations as the basis for forming a general statement about a larger set of possible observations; eat 3 sour green apples, assume all green apples are sour.

Front 9

Deduction/deductive reasoning

Back 9

the use of a general statement as the basis for reaching a conclusion about specific examples.

Front 10

Scientific method

Back 10

a method of acquiring knowledge that uses observations to develop a hypothesis, then uses the hypothesis to make logical predictions that can be empirically tested by making additional, systematic observations – typically, the new observations lead to a new hypothesis, and the cycle continues; non-linear process.

Front 11

Testable hypothesis

Back 11

a hypothesis for which all of the variables, events, and individuals are real and can be defined and observed.

Front 12

Refutable hypothesis

Back 12

a hypothesis that can be demonstrated to be false; that is, the hypothesis allows the possibility that the outcome will differ from the prediction.

Front 13

5 steps of the scientific method

Back 13

(1) observation (2) formation of hypothesis (3) generate testable prediction using hypothesis (4) evaluate the prediction by making systematic planned observations (5) use the observations to support/refute/refine the original hypothesis.

Front 14

Applied research

Back 14

research studies that are intended to answer practical questions or solve practical problems.

Front 15

Basic research

Back 15

research studies that are intended to answer theoretical questions or gather knowledge simply for the sake of new knowledge.

Front 16

Primary source

Back 16

a firsthand report of observations or research results written by the individual(s) who actually conducted the research and made the observations; e.g., research report published in scientific journal.

Front 17

Secondary source

Back 17

a description or summary of another person’s work, written by someone who did not participate in the research or observations discussed; e.g., textbooks; often biased/incomplete.

Front 18

Constructs/hypothetical constructs

Back 18

hypothetical attributes or mechanisms that help explain and predict behaviour in a theory; e.g., self-esteem or laziness.

Front 19

Operational definition

Back 19

a procedure for measuring and defining a construct; specifies a measurement procedure for measuring an external, observable behaviour and uses the resulting measurements as a definition and a measurement of the hypothetical construct.; e.g., IQ test to measure intelligence.

Front 20

Validity

Back 20

the degree to which the study and measurement process answer the intended question and measure the variable it claims to measure.

Front 21

Face validity

Back 21

an unscientific form of validity that concerns whether a measure superficially appears to measure what it claims to measure.

Front 22

Concurrent validity

Back 22

the type of validity demonstrated when scores obtained from a new measure are directly related to scores obtained from a more established measure of the same variable.; e.g., your intelligence test compared to the standardized IQ test.

Front 23

Predictive validity

Back 23

the type of validity demonstrated when scores obtained from a measure accurately predict behaviour according to a theory; e.g., n-Ach vs. challenging task choices.

Front 24

Construct validity

Back 24

the type of validity demonstrated when scores obtained from a measurement behave exactly the same as the variable itself; based on many research studies and grows gradually as each new study contributes more evidence.

Front 25

Convergent validity

Back 25

the type of validity demonstrated by a strong relationship between the scores obtained from two different methods of measuring the same construct.

Front 26

Divergent validity

Back 26

a type of validity demonstrated by using two different methods to measure two different constructs; convergent validity then 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 27

Reliability

Back 27

the degree of stability or consistency of measurements.

Front 28

Test-retest reliability

Back 28

the type of reliability established by comparing the scores obtained from two successive measurements of the same individuals and calculating a correlation between the two sets of scores; successive measurement.

Front 29

Parallel-forms reliability

Back 29

the type of reliability established by comparing scores obtained by using two alternate versions of a measuring instrument to measure the same individuals and calculating a correlation between the two sets of scores.; successive measurement.

Front 30

Inter-rater reliability

Back 30

the degree of agreement between two observers who simultaneously record measurements of a behaviour; simultaneous measurement.

Front 31

Split-half reliability

Back 31

a measure of reliability obtained by splitting the items of a questionnaire or test in half, computing a separate score for each half, and then measuring the degree of consistency between the two scores for a group of participants; internal consistency.

Front 32

Ceiling effect

Back 32

the clustering of scores at the high end of a measurement scale, allowing little or no possibility of increases in value; a type of range effect.

Front 33

Floor effect

Back 33

the clustering of scores at the low end of a measurement scale, allowing little or no possibility of decreases in value; a type of range effect.

Front 34

Single-blind research

Back 34

a research study in which the researcher does not know the predicted outcome for any specific participant.

Front 35

Double-blind research

Back 35

a research study in which both the researcher and the participants are unaware of the predicted outcome for any specific participant.

Front 36

Demand characteristics

Back 36

any potential cues or features of a study that (1) suggest to the participants what the purpose and hypothesis are, and (2) influence the participants to respond or behave in a certain way; artifacts that can threaten measurement/internal/external validities.

Front 37

Reactivity

Back 37

participants’ modification of their natural behaviour in response to the face that they are participating in a research study of the knowledge that they are being measured; an artifact that can threaten validity.

Front 38

Good subject role

Back 38

in a study, a participant’s tendency to respond in a way that is expected to corroborate the investigator’s hypothesis.

Front 39

Negativistic subject role

Back 39

in a study, a participant’s tendency to respond in a way that is expected to refute the investigator’s hypothesis.

Front 40

Apprehensive subject role

Back 40

in a study, a participant’s tendency to respond in a socially desirable fashion rather than truthfully.

Front 41

Faithful subject role

Back 41

in a study, a participant’s attempt to follow experimental instructions to the letter and to avoid acting on the basis of any suspicions about the purpose of the experiment.

Front 42

Scale of measurement

Back 42

the set of categories use for classification of individuals; nominal/ordinal/interval/ratio.

Front 43

Nominal scale

Back 43

SOM in which the categories represent qualitative differences in the variable being measured; different names but are not systematically related to each other; e.g., school majors, race, gender, occupation.

Front 44

Ordinal scale

Back 44

SOM in which the categories have different names and are organized sequentially (1st, 2nd, 3rd); directional relationship.

Front 45

Interval scale

Back 45

SOM in which the categories are organized sequentially and all categories are the same size; the zero point is arbitrary and does not indicate a total absence of the variable being measured; e.g., degrees celcius.

Front 46

Ratio scale

Back 46

SOM in which the categories are sequentially organized, all categories are the same size, and the zero point is absolute/nonarbitrary, and indicates a complete absence of the variable being measured; e.g., height/weight.

Front 47

Desynchrony

Back 47

a lack of agreement between two measures.

Front 48

Range effect

Back 48

the clustering of scores at one end of a measurement scale; i.e., ceiling or floor effects.

Front 49

Regression

Back 49

a statistical technique used for predicting one variable from another; statistical process of finding the linear equation that produces the most accurate predicted values for Y using one predictor variable, X; e.g., line of best fit.

Front 50

Multiple regression

Back 50

a statistical technique used for studying multivariate relationships; statistical process of finding linear equation that produces the most accurate predicted values for Y using more than one predictor variable.

Front 51

Pearson correlation

Back 51

a correlation used to evaluate linear relationships.

Front 52

Spearman correlation

Back 52

a correlation used with ordinal data or to evaluate monotonic relationships.

Front 53

Cohen’s d

Back 53

a standard measure of effect size computed by dividing the sample mean difference by the sample standard deviation.

Front 54

Spearman-Brown formula

Back 54

a formula for computing split-half reliability that corrects for the fact that individual scores are based on only half of the total test items.

Front 55

Kuder-Richardson formula 20/KR20

Back 55

a formula for computing split-half reliability that uses one split-half correlation to estimate the average of all possible split-half correlations when each test item has only two responses; e.g., yes/no or true/false.

Front 56

Cronbach’s alpha

Back 56

a generalization of the KR20 formula that estimates the average of all possible split-half reliability correlations when each test items has more than two responses; e.g., a likert scale with 5 response choices.

Front 57

Cohen’s kappa

Back 57

a calculation that corrects for chance agreement when inter-rater reliability is measured; obs in agreement divided by total # obs x 100 and the pq etc. i.e., binomial table.

Front 58

Confounding variable

Back 58

an extraneous variable that is allowed to change systematically along with the two variables being studied; threat to internal validity.

Front 59

Assignment bias

Back 59

a threat to internal validity that occurs when the process used to assign different participants to different treatments produces groups of individuals with noticeably different characteristics.

Front 60

History

Back 60

a threat to internal validity from any outside event that influences the participants’ scores in one treatment different than in another treatment.

Front 61

Maturation

Back 61

a threat to internal validity from any physiological or psychological changes that occur in a participant during the time that research study is being conducted and that can influence the participant’s scores.

Front 62

Instrumentation/instrumental bias/instrumental decay

Back 62

a threat to internal validity from changes in the measurement instrument that occur during time a research study is being conducted.

Front 63

Testing effects/order effects

Back 63

a threat to internal validity that occurs when participants are exposed to more than one treatment and their responses are affected by participation in an earlier treatment; e.g., fatigue and practice.

Front 64

Statistical regression/regression toward the mean

Back 64

a statistical phenomenon in which extreme scores on a first measurement tend to be less extreme on a second measurement; threat to internal validity.

Front 65

Artifact

Back 65

an external factor that could influence or distort measures in a research study.