1. location of research
1.1. lab
1.1.1. a specially designed environment; as such, it allows maximum control over variables. An environment that has been ‘set up’, they offer access to any equipment.
1.1.1.1. Highly controlled, higher internal validity, can utilise specialist equipment.
1.1.1.2. Low ecological validity, increased risk of demand characteristics
1.2. field
1.2.1. natural setting outside of the laboratory
1.2.1.1. High ecological validity, can research a array of topics, findings likely to be more reflective of real life.
1.2.1.2. Lower internal validity due to a lack of control over variables.
1.3. online
1.3.1. natural setting outside of the laboratory. Surveys and experiments are the most commonly used methodologies online
1.3.1.1. Can access diverse, large samples, data is collected electronically so easy to analyse, easy to replicate.
1.3.1.2. Ethical issues with regard to Informed Consent and participant identity, question mark over the honesty of participants and the validity of the data collected.
2. Validity
2.1. Internal validity- measuring what was set out to measure
2.2. external validity - how well something paints an accurate picture of real life
2.3. validity issues
2.3.1. researcher bias- researcher influences the results of the study
2.3.2. demand characteristics - participants learn the aim of the study and act differently
2.3.3. social desirability - participants want to [ut themselves in the best possible light, not a true reflection of their thoughts and feelings
2.4. dealing with validity issues
2.4.1. double blind procedure- neither researcher or participant know the aim of the study, reduces demand characteristics
2.4.2. single blind- participants are unaware of the hypothesis until the end of the experiment, reduces social desirability and demand characteristics
2.4.3. independent groups - anonymity and confidentiality in their results, reduces validity issues
2.5. assessing validity
2.5.1. face validity - where a test measures what it claims to
2.5.2. predictive validity- whether the findings apply to different and more varied potential future situations
2.5.3. content validity- checking whether of method of measuring behaviour is accurate and has internal validity
2.5.4. concurrent validity - comparing a measurement with an established measurement that has established validity and looking for similarities
2.5.5. construct validity - if the overall results reflect external validity
3. reliability
3.1. internal reliability- the extent that something is consistent within itself, standardisation
3.2. external reliability - consistent results over several occasions
3.3. reliability issues
3.3.1. lack of operationalisation- not clearly stating how variables are measured and defined
3.3.1.1. makes replication harder and gives inter-rater issues
3.3.2. order effects- in repeated measures design, participants may do better in a n experiment the second time around
3.3.3. lack of standardised procedures
3.3.4. inconsistency of measuring tools
3.3.5. uncontrolled environment
3.4. dealing with reliability
3.4.1. standardising procedures, instructions and measuring equipment
3.4.2. research in a lab environment- greater control, low risk of extraneous variables
3.4.3. counter balancing - splitting a sample in half. group one does condition 1 then 2, group 2 does condition 2 then 1, eliminates order effects
3.5. assessing reliability
3.5.1. split half - splitting a participant’s test answers in half and seeing whether s/he got the same or similar scores on the two halves. If so, internal reliability is high; if not, it is low and individual questions would need to be re-ordered or redesigned to improve reliability
3.5.2. test retest- retesting the same participants over time, with the same test, and comparing their scores. If the scores are the same, the test has external reliability.
3.5.3. inter-rater reliability- two or more psychologists produce consistent results by using a standardised method