CPSY 3308 W Exam 1
observer drift
straying from coding standard (do not want this) can't just change what you're doing
internal validity
-ability of research design to test hypothesis -causality
reliability
-consistency or repeatability of a measure -will repeated application yield similar values -importance of coding system and/or proper operationalism
cross sectional design
-different participants studied at one point in time ex: 3 and 4 year olds in ToM task classic pencil task
inter-rater reliability
-do different judges agree independently? ex: olympic judges
primary source
-does it contain the results of a single research study/experiment? -terms like book, chapter, "review", "summary" "met analysis", and "synthesis" usually signal a secondary source review article
external validity
-generalizability -controlled lab
theories
-integrated set of principles, concepts, and/or ideas -organized belief/framework about behavior and/or development -testable -makes predictions about future behaviors Good theories are: parsimonious falsifiable
microgenic design
-longitudinal studies document results (products) of change -what happens *what Ss is like at T1 T2 T3 etc *no info about how change happens *no info about everything that happens between T1 and T3 -"movie" of development -repeated high density observations across period of change is happening -process of change (how it happens)
face validity
-look at operationalization and see whether it 'looks good' eg; depression measure that looks at childs affect -weakest, passes PORI test
time lag design
-looks at historical changes -same age at different points in time -difference you find in 10 year olds reflect: --generational factors (main confound in cross sectional design) --time of measurement factors (main confound longitudinal) -or both!
sequential design
-mix between cross sectional and longitudinal -cohort sequential design
scientific methods
-observe -invent idea consistent with observation -use idea to make predictions/hypotheses -test predictions -modify based on your results
testing effects
because they have taken test before, do better ex: doing better on exam 2
subject variable
characteristics of participants that might actually affect your study --self esteem, sex, age, native language, IQ --only "important" stuff related to the study's variable --sometimes treated as IV in developmental sciences
operational definition
define or represent ideas in terms of specific behaviors or concrete activities that anyone can witness or repeat
situational variable
describes characteristics of context --can be IV (usually) or DV ex: children in classroom
Hawthorne effect
doing better because someone you and paying attention
non-response bias
don't have quiet people talking
attrition
dropping out of research study
cohort
group of like individuals ex: group of ids in 20s much different than people in 20s 30 years ago
duration
how long does response last
latency
how long it takes to get this response
experimental bias
if you think it changes behavior, may notice it does
dependent variable
meausured variable, response, hopes it it changed by how researcher manipulates ex: amount of popcorn eaten
nominal
SCALES OF MEAUREMENT -categorical -no ordering -arbitrary--ex: pretend play as a function of sex, attachment classifications
applied research
- Investigate real-world issues -Generate information that can be applied directly to the solution of a real-world issue ex: Can a very young child open a crankhandled window?
authority
-INFO GATHERING
ecological validity
-Measure reflect what people do in real-world/real-life settings? -may effect the design of the study of the scale of measurement you use
longitudinal design
-some participants observed one or more times -look at similarities and differences in SAME individual as they age -waves (any time you assess) -ex: MN parent-child project
structured observation
-takes place in lab pros: all kids observed in same context -greater control Cons: -lab setting less "natural" for kids -may behave differently than they do in real life
hypothesis
-tentative statement about relationship b/t variables -involves specific testable predictions of observable behavior *children are born bad and need to be civilized (not scientific) *providing preschool children videos and books that contain characters who model sharing behavior will increase the amount of sharing they do during free play -stated so can be refuted or confirmed -data collection possible
secondary source
-terms like book, chapter, "review", "summary" "met analysis", and "synthesis" usually signal a secondary source review article
pilot study
-testing carried out prior to formal data collection, the goal being to refine the procedure and sharpen testing skills
basic research
-theory driven -confirm/disconfirm hypotheses -gather info about behavior/phenomenon -real world? -most university research ex: does the language you speak affect the categorization of objects?
test-retest reliability
-used to assess the consistency of a measure from one time to another -same test twice but... -alternative forms procedure (huge test bank)
narrative record
-write down a description of the behavior that was recorded -focus typically on one kid -strengths: completeness weakness: time consuming
empiracism
CANNONS OF SCIENCE gaining knowledge through systematic observation of the world
testability
CANNONS OF SCIENCE the assumption that explanations of behavior can be tested and falsified through observation
determinism
CANNONS OF SCIENCE the assumption that phenomena have identifiable causes
parsimony
CANNONS OF SCIENCE the assumption that the simplest explanation of a phenomenon is most likely to be correct
selection bias
Dewey phonecall
cliches
INFO GATHERING
folklore
INFO GATHERING
hindsight
INFO GATHERING we think we already know what we are learning -this is because previous info is used, makes new info easier to learn
literature review
Set of peer-reviewed primary/ empirical sources
translational research
Make the results of research applicable to the population under study
rival hypothesis
Might there bean alternative explanation for the results of your study?
lit search
Purpose: -define and limit topic -place study in historical perspective -avoid unnecessary and unintentional replication -select promising methods and measures -relate findings to previous knowledge and suggest further research -develop research hypothesis
interval
SCALES OF MEASUREMENT -ordered -constant scale -difference makes sense, ratios do not -no absolute zero -eg: temperature
ordinal
SCALES OF MEASUREMENT -rank order -different b/t values not mathematically important -ex: class rank, movie rating, Likert Scale, SES, ER pain scale
ratio
SCALES OF MEASUREMENT -ordered -constant scale -absolute zero -eg: weight, length
validity
accuracy of a measure measures what you intend to measure
correlation
an index of the strength and direction of the relation between two variables
intensity
extremity of response
internal consistency
form of reliability based on consistency of response across the different items of a test
maturation
naturally occurring changes in the Ss as a function of the passage of time during the study
frequency
number of times
subjective
personal perspectives/biased
historynarra
potentially important events occurring between early and later measurements in addition to the interdependent variables being studied
random assignment
procedure for assigning participants to experimental conditions in which each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to each condition
random sample
procedure for selection of research participants in which each member of the target population has an equal chance of being selected
double-blind
researcher and participants and others don't know what group they are in
independent variable
researcher can manipulate ex: genre of movie
sampling
selection of a sample of research Ss from a larger poulation
population
the total set of people, observations, or events within some domain
confound
threats to validity ex: experimenter bias, Hawthorne Effect can be confound, 3rd variable
expectancies
trying to confirm hypotheses, do't even realize you're doing it
objective
unbiased