Mock Exam Review

1. First the multi choice, then the complex one. Mock Exam Review

2. Multiple choice section • Reliability: 0.77 • Average: 13/22 (60.27%) • High score: 17/22 (77%) • Low Score: 8/22 (36%)

3. 1. • This type of validity reflects the extent to which the study accurately measures what it purports to measure. • Construct (65%) • Internal • External • Conclusion

4. 2. • This type of validity reflects the extent to which the findings of a study can be applied to other people, places, or times. • Construct • Internal • External (85%) • Conclusion

5. 3. • This type of validity reflects the extent to which the data in a study supports a proposed relationship. • Construct • Internal • External • Conclusion (25%)

6. 4. • This type of validity reflects the extent to which the study establishes evidence of a cause-effect relationship. • Construct • Internal (64%) • External • Conclusion

7. 5. • The independent variable is the • Cause variable • Effect variable • Variable the experimenter manipulates • Variable reflecting the study outcome • a and c (95%) • b and d

8. 6. • The dependent variable is the • Cause variable • Effect variable • Variable the experimenter manipulates • Variable reflecting the study outcome • a and c • b and d (95%)

9. 7. • Which of the following terms can be used most interchangeably (i.e. they mean similar things) • Cross-sectional and longitudinal designs • Cross-sectional and repeated measures designs • Longitudinal and repeated measures designs (46%)

10. 8. • Which of the following types of research is concerned with information from only one variable at a time? • Descriptive (90%) • Relational • Causal

11. 9. • Which of the following types of research is concerned with how variables interact with each other? • Descriptive • Relational (100%) • Causal

12. 10. • Which of the following types of research is concerned with the effect of one variable on another? • Descriptive • Relational • Causal (100%)

13. 11. • Let’s say that as GRE score goes up, graduate GPA goes down. What kind of relationship is this? • No relationship • Positive • Negative (77%) • Curvilinear

14. 12. • Say you find that socio-economic status and mood state were very strongly correlated. Does this mean they are causally related? • Yes • No (77%)

15. 13. • What is the difference between the sampling model and the proximal similarity model? • The sampling model is more difficult to obtain external validity with. • The proximal similarity model considers not just people but settings and times. (35%) • The proximal similarity model forces us to consider random sampling more frequently. • All of the above.

16. 14. • When you have a construct in mind, and do something in an experiment to try to represent that construct, you _____________ it. • model • operationalize (78%) • validate • generalize

17. 15. • It looks like the researcher included a lot of features in the way they represented the construct that are argued for in the research. This suggests good • Face validity • Content validity (11%) • Predictive validity • Concurrent validity • Convergent validity • Discriminant validity

18. 16. • The researcher showed that the operationalization of the construct behaved similarly to another similar operationalization, thus demonstrating good • Face validity • Content validity • Predictive validity • Concurrent validity • Convergent validity (11%) • Discriminant validity

19. 17. • You think that the construct sounds right. This means it probably has reasonable • Face validity (56%) • Content validity • Predictive validity • Concurrent validity • Convergent validity • Discriminant validity

20. 18. • You are concerned that a construct has been measured so frequently that the measurement itself has provided practice at the task being tested. You are concerned with • Inadequate preoperational explication • Mono operation bias • Mono method bias • Interaction of different treatments • Interaction of testing and treatment (78%) • Restricted generalizability • Confounding constructs and levels of constructs • Social threats

21. 19. • You are concerned that a construct has not been sufficiently understood by the researchers, and so is not well operationalized. You are concerned with • Inadequate preoperational explication (67%) • Mono operation bias • Mono method bias • Interaction of different treatments • Interaction of testing and treatment • Restricted generalizability • Confounding constructs and levels of constructs • Social threats

22. 20. • What is the recommended way of controlling for (reducing) social interaction threats? • Add one or more control groups • Use random assignment • Use blind/double blind procedures (33%) • Use random selection

23. 21. • What is the recommended way of controlling for (reducing) single group threats? • Add one or more control groups (78%) • Use random assignment • Use blind/double blind procedures • Use random selection

24. 22. • What is the recommended way of controlling for (reducing) multiple group threats? • Add one or more control groups • Use random assignment (33%) • Use blind/double blind procedures • Use random selection

25. And the long questions... A professor was curious about the impact of student diet, especially sugar and caffeine, on testperformance. She invited students from her classes to participate in a study before their mid-term exams. Forty students accepted the invitation to participate. The professor randomly assigned them to her experimental groups. The students in one group were told not to change their food and drink consumption during the week before their exams but to record everything they ate and drank in a diary. The students in the second group were also asked to record their nutritional intake in the same kind of diary, but were also given unlimited free coffee at the campus coffee shop. The students in the third group received both free coffee and free donuts at the coffee shop, and again were asked to record everything they ate and drank in a diary. The professor planned to use the average of their mid-term grades in her classes as the dependent variable.

26. a) the independent variable • Diet (3 levels: normal vs caffeine vs sugar and caffeine) (100%) • b) the dependent variable • Test performance (100%) • c) the study design using design notation R X1 O R X2 O R X3 O (80%)

27. d) a critique of external validity (70.6%) • From the rubric questions: • What is the relationship being studied? • A professor was curious about the impact of student diet, especially sugar and caffeine, on testperformance • This will provide the starting and finishing point for all critiques (the next would too, usually, but as you’ll see...) • What are the study findings, if any? • None – no data collected yet.

28. d) a critique of the external validity • What is the sampling strategy? • Well, she is a professor, and “She invited students from her classes to participate in a study before their mid-term exams. Forty students accepted the invitation to participate.” • SO: • It is non-probabilistic • It is a sample of convenience • It is a volunteer study (not all will have volunteered)

29. d) a critique of the external validity • To what population/time/setting is the study being generalized/targeted (either implied or actual)? (Look for author wording confirming the attempted generalization) • A professor was curious about the impact of student diet, especially sugar and caffeine, on test performance • The only qualifiers are that she is interested in students’ diets, and she is interested in its effects on test performance only. • So there is something about population (students) and something about setting/timing (effects on test performance – so being applied to when they are taking a test) • The test performance will be taken care of by construct validity (it’s one of the constructs in the study, so doesn’t need to be considered here)...so we’ll restrict ourselves to the population issue here. • Also all recorded their food consumption in a diary (part of study settings)

30. d) a critique of the external validity • What does the sampling strategy and the actual time and settings of the study imply about the merits of any generalization found in (b) above? (Is there a good match, or do you see some mismatches?) • Ok, now we get to the crux of it. Does allowing volunteers from her classes in some way provide a biased sample for the study, such that these students do not adequately represent other students? Or in other settings? • Clearly there are potential problems here. It is very likely that this sample has systematic differences from the general population due to • All participants are from one college, one department, one instructor’s classes • All participants are volunteers • All recorded their food intake (general population does not, explicitly anyway)

31. d) a critique of the external validity • To what extent do you think there is a problem of generalization? In other words, do you think the relationship under investigation (see 1.B.), or the results of the study (see 1.C.) would have potential to change given any of the issues raised in 2.C? • To answer this question, we have to consider: • What moderator variables might have been unwittingly introduced by the sampling strategy • Whether these moderators could interact with the study variables • So what moderators do we have? • SES? Education level? • Interest in research? Responsibility? • Overall awareness/recall of diet? Based on one college etc. Based on volunteerism. Based on diaries.

32. d) a critique of the external validity • But ultimately the goal is to provide a rationale as to whether your moderators would in fact interact with the study findings (have the potential to change them) • SES? Education level? • Could this change the results of a study looking at diet and performance? • (e.g. if these students were more or less than typically capable, would they be more or less susceptible to effects of sugar and/or caffeine on test performance? Well – maybe there’s something to do with test anxiety here? Or competence? Or both?) • Interest in research? Responsibility? • Could this change the results of a study looking at diet and performance? • (e.g. if people are more interested in research, are they more likely to be the kind of disciplined student whose preparation for the test is diligent enough to allay crises of confidence? Or are they likely to be precisely the people who have such crises of confidence, and therefore be more likely to participate...and be more sensitive to the effects of caffeine/sugar dosing) Should be considered but a definitive answer is not needed for an “A”

33. e) a critique of construct validity (68%) • What are the constructs in the study intended to measure? • State the idea(s) behind the dependent measures • State the idea(s) behind the independent measures • Test Performance: • Likely, a capacity to produce competent academic work in a stressful situation. • Type of work/test? Duration? • Diet (especially sugar and caffeine): • Probably getting at energy highs and lows, and memory and cognition type effects, and the supposed effects of S & C • Sugar and caffeine...what are the supposed effects? When do they exert their influence? Long term? Short term? Dose? • Likely you’d have further questions about these 2 from a “full paper”

34. e) a critique of the construct validity • How is each construct in the study operationalized? • State how dependent measures are operationalized • State how independent measures are operationalized • Dependent measure: • Average of mid-term grades • Independent measure: • Influenced via free coffee, doughnuts (depending on group assignment) at campus coffee shop. • Self-reported via diary

35. e) a critique of the construct validity • What are the strengths and/or weaknesses of the observed operationalizations? • Consider the types of validity: face, content, etc. • Consider the laundry list of threats. • Do so for both constructs! • Mid-term grades representing test performance • Has face validity...looks right. Details? What kind of test was the mid-term? This was only one kind of test...how hard was it? Multi-choice? Essay? Timed? Untimed? Level of class (es)? Need more details! • Diet and free coffee/doughnuts • Did they actually partake? Did all of them? On a consistent basis? What we really expect to see are elevated levels of caffeine and or sugar in the diet (for the treatment groups). Is this going to achieve it? • No control of dose, so potentially very weak operationalization. • Self-report has recall/honesty issues

36. e) a critique of the construct validity • Is the construct validity issue as described in previous slide likely to alter the results of the study? • Midterm grades: • Could. What does the effect depend on? Exam stress and it’s response? If so, an easy test might mean a null response, a difficult test an exaggerated one (unable to focus…more stress..etc). • Diet: • Could: If the resultant dosing was too low on average across either group, then null results might come out. Might also get great variability within groups. • If accuracy of diary method is serious, might also get discrepancies (if factoring into analysis by controlling for reported level of dose) Should be considered, but a definitive answer is not needed for an “A”

37. e) a critique of internal validity (71%) • What is the study’s design? R X1 O R X2 O R X3 O

38. e) a critique of the internal validity • Does the study’s design establish temporal precedence? • Yes.

39. e) a critique of the internal validity • Does the study’s design establish covariation of cause and effect? • Yes, partly and potentially. • There is an available comparison of normal versus raised coffee intake. (However, of course, they may not have drunk more) • The potential for increased sugar intake is only available when paired with potential increased caffeine intake – so covariation is compromised for that variable.

40. e) a critique of the internal validity • To what extent does the study’s design control for alternate interpretations of the causal relationship? Does it control for: • Single group threats? • yes • Multiple group threats? • Yes (random assignment – and 40 seems an adequate number, though you could argue this.). • Social interaction threats? • Nope.

41. e) a critique of the internal validity • Using your response to A-D, to what extent is the assertion that the relationship under investigation is causal a reasonable one? • While groups were probably equal at the start of the experiment, the fact that they all attended the same classes suggests they may have become aware of the alternate conditions of the experiment. • The nature of the conditions was such that numerous social issues could have arisen.

42. e) a critique of the internal validity • In the event of observed weak internal validity, can you suggest an alternative causal interpretation? • Can the social issues change the results of the experiment? • Possibly. • Frustration and feeling cheated could conceivably result in people in the control group over-compensating by trying harder, or feeling aggrieved and getting extra stressed and doing poorly. • Note the different pattern of results these possibilities would result in. Should be considered, but a definitive answer is not needed for an “A”