Reference no: EM132303261
Research Methods in Psychology Assignment -
Part A: Research Scenario
In the research scenario presented below, you are required to provide answers to various questions and also asked to comment on what might be wrong with the experimental design employed in the study and how the study design can be improved.
Section 1: Background
A psychologist was employed to help design a study looking into the efficacy of different educational teaching technologies for children living in remote areas of Western Australia (WA). In the study that she designed, 40 children of various ages, all from the Kimberley region of WA, were recruited and were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group (20 children) received instruction in English via radio transmission and had distance education materials (e.g., books and worksheets) to supplement their learning. The other group (20 children) tuned in to a group Skype session in which they could see a teacher, teaching in a classroom, but with no additional materials. Both groups received the same amount of instruction per week (roughly three hours of contact time) and the curriculum and content were the same in both groups. The two groups were given the WA English Proficiency and Understanding Test (WAEPUT) at the end of the term, and the psychologist found that the group who learned via the Skype sessions had significantly higher WAEPUT scores than the other group. In her report, the psychologist recommended issuing all children in the Kimberley region with iPads so that they could participate in Skype learning sessions for all their subjects.
Section 2: Assignment Task
Answer the following questions.
1. What is the name of the research design described in this scenario?
2. What is (are) the Independent Variable(s) and the levels of the IV?
3. What is (are) the Dependent Variable(s)?
4. What kind of statistical test would you use to examine the differences between the two groups?
5. Describe the possible confound(s) in this experimental design.
6. Describe some suggestions for improving the study's design.
In answering the questions,
- it is in your best interests for your answers to be as precise and succinct as possible;
- type the number of each question and format your answers using the questions as your headings;
- leave a line space between the answer to each question.
Part B: Research Analyses - t-test
Section 1: Background
A manipulation check is often used in research to evaluate whether or not a manipulation (of an independent variable) actually had an intended effect on subjects. A researcher wanted to examine the effects of anxiety on performance. In this study, the researcher manipulated levels of anxiety by giving two different kinds of feedback to subjects during a training phase. The idea behind manipulating anxiety as an independent variable is that subjects who think that they are doing poorly will be more anxious than subjects who think that they are doing well. The researcher established two conditions, one in which the subjects were told that they did well during training and that they should not have any problems during the actual testing phase (the low-anxiety group). A second group of subjects was told that that they did poorly during the training (no matter how well they actually did) and that they must try harder if they wanted to avoid making themselves look foolish during the actual test phase (the high-anxiety group). The researcher was told there were potentially several ways in which a manipulation of this nature may actually affect the anxiety level of the subjects, and in this case, he chose to monitor the heart rate of the subjects as they performed the training task. The heart rate of the subjects is listed below in Table 1. Was the manipulation of anxiety in this study effective?
Table 1 - Heart rate of subjects during the training phase as a function of type of feedback
|
Subject
|
Low anxiety feedback
|
Subject
|
Low anxiety feedback
|
|
1
|
70
|
11
|
89
|
|
2
|
74
|
12
|
95
|
|
3
|
80
|
13
|
97
|
|
4
|
73
|
14
|
100
|
|
5
|
68
|
15
|
102
|
|
6
|
72
|
16
|
106
|
|
7
|
70
|
17
|
99
|
|
8
|
76
|
18
|
97
|
|
9
|
78
|
19
|
99
|
|
10
|
70
|
20
|
93
|
Section 2: Assignment Task
Write up the analyses as you would in the Results and Discussion section of a journal article, including the report of a central tendency measure, a variability measure, and the outcome of the t-test. The centred heading you should use at the top of the page is Results and Discussion. You should also create and embed a graph of the data. Follow this up with discussion in which you:
(a) Present some conclusions about the manipulation check of anxiety for the two groups of subjects;
(b) Discuss the shortcomings of the design and the possible confounds of the manipulation check;
(c) Provide some suggestions for improvement of the design of the manipulation check.
NOTE: You do not have to find or include additional references on anxiety or know about the types of tasks used in the training or test phases of the study to write the Results and Discussion section.
Part C: Research Analyses - Between-groups ANOVA
Section 1: Background
A principal of a local primary school was told by a pediatric nutritionist that food additives (e.g., artificial colours, artificial flavours, and preservatives) are likely to stimulate hyperactive behaviour in children. To test this hypothesis, the principal asked the nutritionist to conduct a study into the relationship between hyperactive behaviour (using behaviour ratings provided by teachers) and the number of days in a two-month period in which a child ate foods containing additives. Parents of the children - of various ages and grade levels at the primary school - were asked to keep food diaries for two months which detailed the types of foods eaten by their children and these diaries were assessed by the nutritionist. In Table 2 below, the hyperactivity ratings of a range of children provided by their teacher (from 0 to 100, the higher the number, the higher the hyperactivity profile of a child as rated by the teacher) as a function of the number of days (as a percentage) in the two-month period in which a child ate artificial foods is presented.
Table 2 - Teacher hyperactivity ratings (0-100) as a function of days in which foods containing additives was consumed
|
Percentage of days in a two-month period in which a child ate foods containing food additives
|
|
0%
|
20%
|
40%
|
60%
|
80%
|
100%
|
|
49
|
71
|
48
|
63
|
70
|
88
|
|
59
|
54
|
53
|
72
|
81
|
89
|
|
61
|
62
|
64
|
56
|
59
|
87
|
|
52
|
58
|
53
|
59
|
64
|
77
|
|
50
|
64
|
59
|
64
|
74
|
94
|
|
58
|
68
|
61
|
70
|
65
|
97
|
|
63
|
57
|
54
|
63
|
69
|
98
|
|
54
|
61
|
60
|
65
|
72
|
78
|
Section 2: Assignment Task
Perform appropriate analyses to determine whether or not the data supports the claim that the more that a child eats foods containing additives, the higher the likelihood of having a high rating on hyperactivity. As part of your analyses, you should perform two planned comparisons: One which compares the 'almost daily' consumption group (80% and 100%) versus the 'hardly ever' consumption group (0% and 20%) and the other to determine whether or not the relationship between the hyperactivity ratings and food additive consumption may be considered to be linear. Note that the two planned comparisons do not need to be orthogonal. Furthermore, to determine the linearity of the relationship, you will need to perform a trend analysis. You should also choose, perform, and report the post hoc comparisons you deem relevant to check whether or not particular pairs of groups are significantly different. As with the planned comparisons, report the results of the post hoc tests in your Results and Discussion section write up.
Write up the analyses as you would in the Results and Discussion section of a journal article, including the report of a central tendency measure, a variability measure, the outcome of the statistical analyses you choose to perform, along with the results of the planned comparisons. The centred heading you should use at the top of the page is Results and Discussion. You should also create and embed a graph of the data. Follow this up with a discussion in which you present some conclusions about the relationship between hyperactivity and consumption of food additives, taking into account the design of the study.
NOTE: You do not have to find additional references on hyperactivity and food additives to write the Results and Discussion section.
Part D: Research Analyses - Repeated Measures ANOVA
Section 1: Background
Researchers have long suspected that exercise has a positive effect on one's psychological well-being. Dr Richard Simmons decided to investigate the effects of exercise in a longitudinal study. He recruited five male volunteers to test a four-week exercise regime in which the participants did aerobic exercise for four hours per day, five days per week under the supervision of a fitness instructor. At the end of each week, the participants filled in a measure of psychological well-being known as the Psychological Well-Being Scale (PWBS). Scores on the PWBS could range between 1 to 70 with higher values indicating greater self-reported psychological well-being. Dr Simmonds carefully recruited his participants. All his participants were born in October, 1962. At the beginning of the study, all participants weighed around 100 kilos and all were the same height (177 cm tall). None of the participants had exercised regularly in the past 36 months. The well-being scores for the four assessments are listed in Table 3.
Table 3 - Data from the Simmonds study
|
Subject
|
Scores on the PWBS
|
|
End of Week 1 score
|
End of Week 2 score
|
End of Week 3 score
|
End of Week 4 score
|
|
1
|
60
|
59
|
63
|
68
|
|
2
|
52
|
53
|
58
|
61
|
|
3
|
61
|
67
|
69
|
69
|
|
4
|
44
|
46
|
50
|
50
|
|
5
|
63
|
62
|
66
|
67
|
At the end of the four-week research study, Dr Simmons wrote up his results with the conclusion that a four-week exercise programme was necessary to significantly improve one's psychological well-being for people of all ages. However, when he submitted his paper to a journal, the peer reviewers pointed out a number of flaws with his study design and his conclusions and asked him to re-write the Results and Discussion section, incorporating the flaws that were pointed out to him.
Section 2: Assignment Task
Write up the analyses as you would in the Results and Discussion section of a journal article, including the report of a central tendency measure, a variability measure, and the outcome of the analyses. The centred heading you should use at the top of the page is Results and Discussion. You should also create and embed a graph of the data and make sure you report the percentage of variability in the PWBS scores that is accounted for by the independent variable. Follow this up with a discussion (30 points) in which you:
(a) Present some conclusions about the relationship between the independent variable on the PWBS score;
(b) Discuss the shortcomings of the study's design and the possible confounds;
(c) Discuss what additional data you would have liked to have collected to clarify the meaning of the present results, especially in light of the conclusions.
NOTE: You do not have to find additional references on exercise and psychological well-being to write the Results and Discussion section.
Attachment:- Assignment File.rar