A true experiment, taking place in a natural setting to determine the causal relationship between two things, has many important factors to account for. The experiment administrator must first consider the independent and dependent variables, pre testing and post testing of subjects, and the split between experimental and control groups. These two groups must be equivalent, and the experimental group must be exposed to the treatment, or the independent variable. My true experiment to test whether art therapy programs for serious violent and chronic juvenile offenders is effective in reducing recidivism of offenders involves a sample size of 100 juvenile offenders, all with similar release dates. Using the probability sampling tactic of
…show more content…
Here, we could review the arrest rates before the art therapy program, such as we do when observing the number of school exclusions prior to the implementation of the Restorative Justice model. After the art therapy program, we would do a posttest and review whether the arrest rates due to recidivism had gone down. A major factor in this experiment, to ensure that the experimenter does not pre judge the results, would be to implement a “double-blind” approach, where they do not know which group is taking the art therapy program, and recidivism is measured solely on the observation of redivistic …show more content…
During the course of this experiment, an event similar to the proposition 21 gang enhancement laws could take place, thereby enhancing sentences for juvenile offenders by double the time if the prisoner recidivates. It is likely that the juvenile offenders, even if they had not taken the art therapy program would avoid recidivating under this new law, here the internal validity threat of history would pay a major role in reviewing the post test of the experiment. The second threat of validity of maturation plays a major role in this experiment, for example, a prisoner in the experimental group could decide to take up education while in juvenile hall, therefore reducing his likelihood to recidivate because of another external factor. Similar to maturation, through the art therapy program the experimental group could feel they are under the microscope with the test and observation of their recidivism rates, therefore more likely to tailor their behavior to what they think the researcher is looking to observe. To ensure that instrumentation does not internally threaten the validity, I need to make sure the pre test and post test observations are uniform, in measuring exactly what defines recidivism, for example, I would not consider robbery an indicator of recidivism and then discard this indicator when observing the results. Say for example, a large portion of the
Here, we could review the arrest rates before the art therapy program, such as we do when observing the number of school exclusions prior to the implementation of the Restorative Justice model. After the art therapy program, we would do a posttest and review whether the arrest rates due to recidivism had gone down. A major factor in this experiment, to ensure that the experimenter does not pre judge the results, would be to implement a “double-blind” approach, where they do not know which group is taking the art therapy program, and recidivism is measured solely on the observation of redivistic …show more content…
During the course of this experiment, an event similar to the proposition 21 gang enhancement laws could take place, thereby enhancing sentences for juvenile offenders by double the time if the prisoner recidivates. It is likely that the juvenile offenders, even if they had not taken the art therapy program would avoid recidivating under this new law, here the internal validity threat of history would pay a major role in reviewing the post test of the experiment. The second threat of validity of maturation plays a major role in this experiment, for example, a prisoner in the experimental group could decide to take up education while in juvenile hall, therefore reducing his likelihood to recidivate because of another external factor. Similar to maturation, through the art therapy program the experimental group could feel they are under the microscope with the test and observation of their recidivism rates, therefore more likely to tailor their behavior to what they think the researcher is looking to observe. To ensure that instrumentation does not internally threaten the validity, I need to make sure the pre test and post test observations are uniform, in measuring exactly what defines recidivism, for example, I would not consider robbery an indicator of recidivism and then discard this indicator when observing the results. Say for example, a large portion of the