18/04/12
Is there anything that can’t be measured by psychologists?
In the field of psychology we often want to research abstract concepts which at first glance may seem impossible to measure or quantify. Often these concepts, which are referred to as hypothetical constructs are the central element of a research hypothesis and so in order for the research to be successful psychologists must find a way to measure this (http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1939-00457-000). To achieve this, psychologist use operational definitions. These operational definitions are a collection of directly measurable behaviours or traits whose values can be combined to give information on the concept being looked at.
These operational definitions may be seen as the solution to a huge problem, however as always, there are pitfalls to be avoided in using them. The main problem is that you can use almost anything as an operational definition but it is not necessarily going to be valid. For example if you wanted to measure bravery, the amount of times somebody brushes their teeth a day would not be a good operational definition, however the willingness with which they leave their comfort zone could be (http://academic.uprm.edu/~ephoebus/id98.htm).
However if we were not to use these operational definitions then we would have no way of measuring such variables. These operational definitions are the best method we have available to attempt to study in a more objective and standardized way. This allows for the same hypothetical construct to be investigated multiple times in a more reliable way.
It can be seen that with the use of operational definitions the things which can be measured by psychologists are almost infinite. However it should be remembered that when we use operational definitions we are not directly measuring the hypothetical constructs. Therefore there is certainly a vast amount of things that are simply impossible for psychologists to measure directly (happiness, bravery, resentment), however we can still study them by measuring relating behaviours which are more overt and then applying this data to the construct.
Comments fo Wendy 14/03
The difference between a case study and single case designs
Case studies and single case studies, although sounding similar, are two very different methods which psychologists can use to collect their data. They vary in almost all aspects and are non-compatible to each other, that is that you could not expect to generalise the findings of one onto another.
By their nature case studies lend themselves to qualitative data collection. This is due to the fact that a large amount of information on a variety of mediums can be combined in a case study to get a general picture of the situation (http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED415771&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED415771). In a case study one individual is studied in great detail, with all information gathered relates to or originates from this person. Case studies are great tools for psychologists as the information gained is so extensive that they can use it in virtuously limitless ways. Examples of these methods used to great success include the H.M and Clive wearing case studies regarding memory. They have helped psychologists gain an applied insight into the way people use memory and what can happen when abnormalities occur. Such information would be impossible to gain with other methods which rely on more controlled conditions and the need for multiple participants.
However this benefit of case studies, the fact that such a wealth of information can be gained from one person is also its biggest weakness, a distinct lack of generalisation. It is impossible to generalise a case study back to the population because they are just one individual and the data gained is not derived from means, so it violates many of the assumptions required for quantitative comparisons (http://www.simplypsychology.org/case-study.html). They are also more subjective than other methods of research as they are more susceptible to the influence of the researcher’s emotions and interpretations.
Single case designs work in a different way. They are normally qualitative and involve the use of many participants. Each participant in a single case design acts as their own control meaning that there is reduced chance of the effect being down to individual differences (http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/02699059209008139). These studies are repeatable as the method can be reapplied to other groups of participants. You can also generalise the single subject design back to the population as multiple means are compared. These studies lend themselves to exploration through statistical tests which make the findings easier to sum up.
It can be seen that these two methods though similar in name are very different once applied. It should also be noted that neither is better than the other as they both work better under different circumstances.
Comments for Wendy
Here are the comments for the week Feb 20th – 26th
http://sinaealice.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/placebo-effect/#comment-57
http://mballen91.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/psuedoscience-and-research-into-the-paranormal/#comment-49
http://psucf0.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/a-case-of-bias-in-psychological-research/#comment-44
http://stefftevs.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/blogs-the-pros-and-cons/#comment-31
Is it good science to keep adding participants/manipulating data until you find an effect?
As scientists we invest a lot of time into collecting our data and finding ways to present it the world which might highlight its importance. However it is not uncommon to find a study which has manipulated its data or added participants in order to change the results and present an effect. This is contrary to the objective nature of science and therefore has no place within the scientific community.
Adding participants can help an experimenter to find an effect if their original participants did not show one. This can be used in combination with a measure of central tendency which is not particularly sensitive to the sample size, such as the median. (http://www.wisegeek.com/can-statistics-be-misleading.htm) This would allow an experimenter to present his findings as significant despite the fact that his original findings would not have shown this result. This would therefore limit the extent to which his results could be accurately related back to the general public, meaning they have validity issues which could be concealed.
Some experimenters add participants or manipulate the data because they have been studying something for a particularly long period of time and so have invested a lot of effort into it. They then become involved in the study to the point where they simply want to be proved right and so the scientific methodology of their study suffers. In this way an experimenter can appear to have proved their theory even though there was no real effect.
Although it can be argued that there must be something in the results in order to find an effect it should be noted that any real effect should be blatant enough to appear without the need to manipulate the data or call in extra participants. Mark twain popularized the saying about the three types of lies, “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.” This is not attitude scientists should want people to have towards statistics if we want them to believe our findings. The goal of science is to inform the masses, via the use of evidence. This evidence is most often in the form of some sort of statistics. Therefore it is good science to use statistics in an honest and informative way, any other use of them is bad practice and can only be detrimental to our field.
Comments for Wendy: WEEK 3
10/02/2010
http://lon03.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/is-reliability-important/#comment-23
http://kdjhg.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/does-it-matter-when-research-was-carried-out/#comment-47
http://psud74.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/what-makes-a-research-finding-important/#comment-28
This one doesn’t link directly to my comment as I couldnt find an exact link I’m afraid. Hope you find the right comment 🙂
Should psychology be written for the layman or should science be exclusively for scientists?
Psychology has influenced the general knowledge of the population for many years, infiltrating many aspects from television (with psychologists such as Linda Papadopoulos making many appearances), to magazines and often even in light conversation. It could therefore be argued that it would be beneficial to publish psychology journals in a more accessible way, such as using less jargon and fewer technical terms and explaining things in a way aimed at the layman.
This could however become very detrimental to the science. The jargon that is used creates a set of words which have a very specific meaning; this means that for the scientists there is a reduced chance of misconceptions. This allows scientists to deliver both precise and concise accounts of their findings using a standardized vocabulary of field specific terminology allowing easier collaboration of results and also peer review. However it means that for the student who is learning the science, there can be a lot of complications in incorporating this language into their own vocabulary (http://www.mcgrawhill.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335205984.pdf).
The use of jargon can also be confusing to the general public which leads them to draw false conclusions from the evidence they may be presented with. Even worse many people have a distrust of information that does not seem to be 100% transparent and understandable to them. This would mean that although the findings could be valid and influential, they would not be accepted by the general public (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12663432).
It is the role of science to improve the knowledge of mankind; therefore it is paramount that the results published in scientific journals are able to make their way into the knowledge of the general population. If the knowledge is not accessible or understandable then science cannot achieve this. Therefore perhaps it would be in the best interest of science for it to continue to use scientific terminology in journals whilst allowing for other outlets to present the information in a more understandable fashion. This way scientists can see the specifics and the public can get the jist of what research is saying. Although this may not be the most accurate interpretation, it is the most practical as not everybody can be educated in every scientific discipline.
Comments – week 11
Must the need for ethics procedures hinder research progress?
Ethics can often be seen as a thing which can at times get in the way of research and limit what can be done. However from the viewpoint of someone who is subject gaining SONA credits I must say that I am thankful there is something in place to ensure participant welfare. These limits ensure that there is minimal risk of adverse consequences for the participants.
However is there a point at which the procedures inherent to implementation of ethics start to become detrimental to the progress of science? In the past many studies have pushed the boundaries of what is ethical, but in the process have pushed the field of psychology further, notably Milgram and Zimbardo. However these studies could not be recreated in modern times as they would not be granted ethical approval. Therefore we would not have these contributions.
In Zimbardos study however one participant did have severe anxiety as a result of the study and eventually was sent home. It is certainly unacceptable to ever say that this sort of study should be conducted in the name of science. However with hindsight it is much easier to cal this study unethical, it would be much harder to foresee the complications that arose just from the plan.
Like so many things in the modern day the ethics procedures that psychologists must undergo have turned into a bureaucratic assault course with no holds barred (http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/racdv/ethics/nhs/index.html). The standards that researchers have to meet could be seriously limiting the research that they could do. Although in recent years research seems to be becoming much better for participants as a result of this system.
But these procedures do not need to hinder the progress of research that is conducted. It is possible for the majority of research plans to be adapted slightly to fit in with the standards of ethics. Therefore they can still gain the results and answer the question they set out to investigate.
It has to be said then, that although in a severely miniscule amount of cases, ethics does hinder or stop the research from being carried out; most of the time however the research can be carried out in a modified form. Therefore Ethics are definitely worth the hindrance they cause, if they are going to safeguard the wellbeing of the participants involved.
statisticalscrutiny 