I. Jackson (2012), even-numbered chapter exercises, p 360. 2. The recommended design for this type of study is a non-equivalent control group post-test only design. 4. If a study is confounded, the researcher is not absolutely certain that changes in the dependent variable were caused by the manipulation of the independent variable, or some other uncontrolled variable. In a non-equivalent control group post-test only design, any differences observed between the two classes may be due to the non-equivalence of the groups and not to the injection of quizzes. No pre-test measures were given to establish equivalence. Another confound that may impact the results of this study could be the testing effect. Repeated testing may lead to better or worse performance. Changes in performance on the test may be due to prior experience with the test and not to the independent variable. In addition, repeated testing fatigues the subjects, and their performance declines as a result (Jackson, 2012). Because the professor is interested in determining if the implementation of weekly quizzes would improve test scores, an experimenter and/or an instrumentation effect may also affect results. In a single group post-test only design, possible confounds include the lack of a comparison group and the absence of an equivalent control group. Once again, a testing and an experimenter effect could also contribute to changes in test performance. 6. A single-case design is used when: 1. Only one person is measured. 2. The researcher does not want or need to generalize the results to a population. 3. The researcher believes it is unethical to withhold treatment to one group. 8. A multiple-baseline design differs from a reversal design by attempting to control for confounds through the introduction of treatment at differing time intervals to a few different people, to the same person in different situations, or to the same person across different behaviors. Reversal designs attempt to control for confounds by reversing the baseline and treatment conditions one or more times to assess the impact on behavior (Jackson, 2012). 2. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experiments? What is the fundamental weakness of a quasi-experimental design? Why is it a weakness? Does its weakness always matter? Quasi-experimental designs are experimental designs that do not provide for the full control of extraneous variables. Primarily, the absence of control in this design is due to the lack of random assignment to groups. Quasi-experimental research designs are used in the study of cause and effect by manipulating the independent variable.
Going into details of the article, I realized that the necessary information needed to evaluate the experimental procedures were not included. However, when conducting an experiment, the independent and dependent variable are to be studied before giving a final conclusion.
Some students simply do not test well, others try their hardest and still cannot reach the impracticable standards set for them. The individuals who create these tests do not understand the pressures of being a student, or the struggle to answer thirty-five questions in a compressed time period. One test cannot accurately measure the intelligence of a student.
In order to have a successful, reliable experiment you need sufficient data and evidence, reliable research, variables to test and a follow – up experiment. There are several types of variables you need to do an experiment. An independent variable is the manipulated experimental factor that is changed to see what the effects are. A dependent variable is the outcome. This factor can change in an experiment in reaction to the changes in the independent variable. An experimental group is the group of participants that are exposed to the change that the independent variable represents. The control group is participants who are treated in the same way as the experimental group except for the manipulated factor which is the independent variable (King 24). Proper data, evidence and research is also needed so the experiment turns out correctly and you know what you are testing. A follow – up experiment is not required, however it helps the validity of the conclusion of the experiment. Validity is “the soundness of the conclusions that a researcher draws from an experiment” (King 25). Conducting a follow – up experiment will help researchers and people alike see if the experiment worked properly, continues to help people and see how participants are doing after the experiment is over.
Developing studying skills that incorporate testing myself will take the ease of being overwhelmed, as well as help with concentration, and becoming more comfortable and confident. Practicing recalling information over time will help in recalling for an actual assessment, by retaking study guides, and creating at home pre-test. 3The information provided by Karpicke and Roediger can me as an educator and other educators by considering various methods of learning. Using test as an instrument of learning rather than solely an assessment on knowledge can be essential in helping students’ learning effectiveness. Since the experiment showed that the learning conditions where retrieval was repeated caused students to have 80% of the pairs recalled compared to the 33% of where retrieval was not practice shows that testing can be used as a tool of learning. In my classroom I would implement take pre-test for homework and/or extra credit assignments, as well as implement classroom activities such as games where testing occurs in a communal group setting. Retrieval is easier when related pieces of information are stored in close association with one another (Ormord p. 212). Therefore, I would have students get in pairs and test each other on the information as soon as the lesson is over as a form of review and test
Some of the advantages include the ability to target only one behavior, unlike the multiple baseline and multiple probe designs (Gast and Ledford (2014). In addition changing criterion can be used to evaluate an increase or decrease in certain behaviors. Changing criterion has been used to monitor desensitization, fading out prompts and self-monitoring (Gast and Ledford (2014). Lastly, changing criterion allows participants to use small steps in each phase to change behavior without any additional stress on the participant.
The research design that was employed by Martin for Sarah was a single-subject design. This is also called an A-B design. It simply means that the subject (Sarah) serves as her own control. There is no control group and experimental group in place, the data gathered is only from Sarah. It is a representation of her frequency of SIB (self-injurious behavior) over a four-day period with no intervention. Then an intervention is implemented which in this case a DRO or Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior was chosen. That also took place over a period of four days and the frequency of her SIB behaviors was again recorded. That data was then compiled into a comprehensive chart to visually show the changes that occurred within that eight-day period.
According to Cooper & Heron & Heard 92007), the multiple baseline design is the mostly used by behavior analysts and researchers because it allows for the independent variable to be contrived across different settings, subjects, and behaviors, without having to implement a withdrawal procedure that can be detrimental to the client (p.201). Hence this research design allows for the behavior analysts to determine how behaviors may different from client to client (groups or several individuals, setting to setting (i.e. school vs. home), and behaviors (i.e. same behaviors in a group or individuals). To better understand the difference in the multiple baseline design all three of the designs must be examined.
Randomized Controlled Trials can be used to in several types of evaluations, including new therapies (i.e. Cognitive behavioral therapy versus emotionally focused therapy when treating couples), community interventions, and diagnostic techniques (O'Brien, 2013). The RCT study design randomly assigns participants into an experimental group or a control group. As the study is conducted, the only expected difference between the control and experimental groups is the outcome variable being studied (O'Brien, 2013).
This research study should be classified as a quasi-experiment, as the independent variable (height and gender) is not manipulated by the researcher but occurs naturally. A true experimental design would have one single group, with a common measured outcome and participants randomly assigned. In this way, individual background variables such as gender do not that satisfy the requirements to be a true experiment since sex cannot purposefully be manipulated in this way. Furthermore, the participants were not randomly picked from the general population; instead all participants were instead first year psychology students from a large European university who participated in exchange for course credit.
...nclude Mono-Operation bias, according to Trochim & Donnelly (2008), which is a threat to construct validity that happens when there is a problem with your operationalization of your independent variable versus the construct on which it was based. Another design threat is that of the Mono-Method bias and this threat to construct validity refers to the use of only one method of measurement i.e. (you can’t provide proof that you are measuring what you say you are measuring) (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). In addition, and according to Trochim & Donnelly (2008), a threat to construct validity is that of Interaction of Different Treatments, which means that experiences outside of those being controlled by your experiment effect the outcome of the study. An additional threat to construct validity that is related to design is Interaction of Testing and Treatment, which is
Longitudinal design validity is also dependent upon using set time intervals that make sense with the research being performed. This study does not say explicitly express how intervals for MI instruction were chosen. Furthermore, the study does not explain why or how intervals for pre and post assessments were decided. This is important because past research may have told how long it takes for MI to be successful and at what intervals it needs to be performed in order to yield the best outcomes for participants. This data may have changed the length of the study or the time intervals and potentially changed results.
Research design, the particular design of this problem is experimental, our text lists three (3) separate types of these: Experimental designs, Quasi-experimental designs, and Preexperimental designs (Hagan, 2010), the An Outcome Evaluation of Pennsylvania’s Boot Camp: Does Rehabilitative Programming within a Disciplinary Setting Reduce
5. What did the authors find? The authors of the article discovered that when values were adjusted solely on baseline tests there were no significant differences in cognitive functions between the groups intervention group and the control group. Furthermore, the test values were adjusted on the basis of baseline values, sex, age and educational years.
The control group was conducted the same way however, there were a couple differences. They were not told the story of being taped and shown to a psychology class and there was not a person videotaping them while they were shooting their second set of free
However, during the post-test, they felt less confident and poorly performed which resulted in little change in their mean score. The control group, however, felt less confident on the pre-test and failed but improved slightly during the post-test and this resulted in an increase in the mean. In this study, the researcher selected the two groups based on their performance. The researcher assumed that the treatment group would perform better during the post-test compared to the pre-test. However, the fact that the treatment group did