865177
Description
Mind Map by barkerjames14, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by barkerjames14
almost 10 years ago
|
|
INVESTIGATIONS
- SELF-REPORT
- Questionnaires & Interviews
- Two types:
Non-directive &
Fully structured
- Non-directive is
good for counselling
and therapy
- Fully structured gives the
experimenter the answers
they want quickly
- Non-directive is
good for counselling
and therapy
- Different types of
question: Closed
questions, open
questions & rating
scales
- Two types:
Non-directive &
Fully structured
- RELIABILITY ISSUES -
Based on personal opinion
- questions often open to
interpretation
- IMPROVED -
use more closed
questions with
categorised
answers - repeat
experiment
- IMPROVED -
use more closed
questions with
categorised
answers - repeat
experiment
- VALIDITY ISSUES -
Participants may lie or give
desired answers - often qual
data, considered unvalid
- IMPROVED -
avoid leading
questions -
inforce
confidentiality -
use a pilot
- IMPROVED -
avoid leading
questions -
inforce
confidentiality -
use a pilot
- ETHICS - Doesn't always fully
reveal what investigation is
investigating - confidentiality -
can ask personal question
- STRENGTHS
- source of
primary data
(valid) - large
amount of
data quickly
- WEAKNESSES
- open questions
often subjective
- response bias
& social
desirability
- Questionnaires & Interviews
- OBSERVATION
- Participant and non-participant
- Better understanding -
naturalistic - investigator bias -
deceptive - highly subjective
- Ethically good - no investigator
bias - generally objective - May
misinterpret - unnaturalistic
- Time and event sampling
- Better understanding -
naturalistic - investigator bias -
deceptive - highly subjective
- ETHICS - Obtaining
consent and keeping it
covert difficult - whether to
include results of those
unhappy with being part
- RELIABILITY ISSUES -
Dependent on the opinions of
observer (subjective) - human
error e.g. miss things
- IMPROVED -
Inter-rater
reliability - watch
through
one-sided mirror
- IMPROVED -
Inter-rater
reliability - watch
through
one-sided mirror
- VALIDITY ISSUES -
Behaviours may be
misinterpreted
- IMPROVED -
Use a pilot -
then decide
whether test is
valid
- IMPROVED -
Use a pilot -
then decide
whether test is
valid
- STRENGTHS -
First hand
knowledge,
both types of
data, likely to
get natural
behaviour
- WEAKNESSES
- Observer
effects -
Observer bias -
Ethical issues
- Participant and non-participant
- EXPERIMENT
- STRENGTHS
- First hand
knowledge -
easy to
establish
casual
relationship -
large samples
- WEAKNESSES
- Investigator
bias -
extraneous
variables -
ecological
validity
(mundane
realism)
- Laboratory, Field & Natural
- Takes place in an
environment controlled
by the experimenter
- Takes place in the subject's
natural environment
- IV is naturally occuring (also
called Quasi-Experiment)
- Takes place in an
environment controlled
by the experimenter
- RELIABILITY ISSUES - Analysing the data
from experiment could be subjective or human
error - participants have individual differences
so complete reliability hard to achieve
- IMPROVED -
inter-rater
analysis - use
matched pairs
design
- IMPROVED -
inter-rater
analysis - use
matched pairs
design
- VALIDITY ISSUES - Does the test actually test the
dependent variable in relation to the independent
variable - lab experiments may not be ecologically
valid - are extraneous variables eliminated
- IMPROVED -
conduct a pilot
study - use field
experiments or
Quasi-experiments
- IMPROVED -
conduct a pilot
study - use field
experiments or
Quasi-experiments
- DESIGNS
- Independent measures - groups include different participants
in each one which are not made to resemble each other
- Lacks reliability
- Lacks reliability
- Repeated measures - groups are carried across between
conditions so the participants are exactly the same
- Can result in order effects
- Can result in order effects
- Matched Pairs - groups include different participants in each one
but are made to resemble each other in their characteristics
- Difficult to make them fully resemble
each other, time consuming
- Difficult to make them fully resemble
each other, time consuming
- Independent measures - groups include different participants
in each one which are not made to resemble each other
- Null and alternative hypotheses
- Null - saying there is will be no
difference between two conditions
- Alternative - there will be a
difference between two conditions
- OPERATIONALISE!
- OPERATIONALISE!
- Null - saying there is will be no
difference between two conditions
- Displayed by frequency
polygons & histograms
- STRENGTHS
- First hand
knowledge -
easy to
establish
casual
relationship -
large samples
- CORRELATION
- STRENGTHS - Shows the
relationship between two
co-variables and strength - not
unethical at all - starting point for
research
- WEAKNESSES
- Cannot
assume cause
and effect -
secondary
data so risks
with validity
- Positive or negative
correlation
- ETHICS - good as all
data is secondary
and no participants
are involved
- STRENGTHS - Shows the
relationship between two
co-variables and strength - not
unethical at all - starting point for
research
- TYPES OF SAMPLE
- Snowball - Investigator approaches
one participant who in turn
approaches several others and the
sample 'snowballs' to become a
large sample
- Opportunity - Not really a
'technique', researcher uses
people that are readily available,
usually known to investigator prior
to experiment
- Random - All target
population have an equal
chance of being selected,
usually using a computer to
ensure complete
randomness, very rarely used
- Systematic - Finding a starting point
within a target population and then
obtaining subsequent participants by
using a constant interval e.g. every 10th
person
- Stratified - Target population is
divided into subgroups and then
random samples are taken from
the subgroups
- Snowball - Investigator approaches
one participant who in turn
approaches several others and the
sample 'snowballs' to become a
large sample
Media attachments
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.