Controlled Experiment

The researcher then observes the results of that action, modifying it as necessary, while simultaneously learning from the action and generating theoretical insights about the target problem and interventions. The initial theory is validated by the extent to which the chosen action successfully solves the target problem. Simultaneous problem solving and insight generation is the central feature that distinguishes action research from all other research methods, and hence, action research is an excellent method for bridging research and practice. Secondary data analysis may be an effective means of research where primary data collection is too costly or infeasible, and secondary data is available at a level of analysis suitable for answering the researcher’s questions. Construct validity examines how well a given measurement scale is measuring the theoretical construct that it is expected to measure. Many constructs used in social science research such as empathy, resistance to change, and organizational learning are difficult to define, much less measure.

For example, people who choose to keep journals might also be more conscientious, more introverted, or less stressed than people who do not. Therefore, any observed difference between the two groups in terms of their health might have been caused by whether or not they keep a journal, or it might have been caused by any of the other differences between people who do and do not keep journals. Thus the active manipulation of the independent variable is crucial for eliminating the third-variable problem. The result was that guests who received the message that most hotel guests choose to reuse their towels reused their own towels substantially more often than guests receiving either of the other two messages. The ultimate test of an experiment’s external validity is replication — conducting the study over again, generally with different subject populations or in different settings. Researchers will often use different methods, to see if they still get the same results.

OSCE are often used in medical fields to assess a student’s ability to perform certain tasks in a real-life scenario. For example, the real-life scenario might involve an actor pretending to have some ailment, and the student is rated on how well they respond in terms of their diagnosis and the treatment they prescribe. Portfolios often contain a sample of products that are used to represent an individual’s accomplishments in a given field or area of expertise. For example, professors might be required to record publications, awards, and recognitions over the course of multiple years.

An example of a study with good external validity would be in the above example, the researcher also ensured that the study had external validity by having participants use the app at home rather than in the laboratory. The researcher clearly defines the population of interest and choosing a representative sample, and he/she replicates the study for different technological devices. guru randhawa girlfriend While rigorous research methods can ensure internal validity, external validity, on the other hand, may be limited by these methods. The less chance there is for “confounding” in a study, the higher the internal validity and the more confident we can be in the findings. Confounding refers to a situation in which other factors come into play that confuses the outcome of a study.

For instance, construct validity must assure that a measure of empathy is indeed measuring empathy and not compassion, which may be difficult since these constructs are somewhat similar in meaning. Construct validity is assessed in positivist research based on correlational or factor analysis of pilot test data, as described in the next chapter. Darley and Latané operationalized the independent variable of diffusion of responsibility by increasing the number of potential helpers. In epidemiology, the gold standard in research design generally is considered to be the randomized control trial . RCTs, however, can answer only certain types of epidemiologic questions, and they are not useful in the investigation of questions for which random assignment is either impracticable or unethical. The bulk of epidemiologic research relies on observational data, which raises issues in drawing causal inferences from the results.

The different kinds of validity and where they exist at the theoretical/empirical levels are illustrated in Figure 5.2. Studies are high in external validity to the extent that the result can be generalized to people and situations beyond those actually studied. Although experiments can seem “artificial”—and low in external validity—it is important to consider whether the psychological processes under study are likely to operate in other people and situations. For example, in almost all experiments, participants’ intelligence quotients will be an extraneous variable.

Anecdotal evidence consists of stories that have been experienced by a person that are told to prove or disprove a point. For example, many people have told stories about their alien abductions to prove that aliens exist. They are separate types of evidence that can be used to try to prove or disprove and idea or claim. An important step in verifying evidence is having it tested by other researchers to see if they get the same results.

Therefore, it would be problematic to generalize the results of the study to a larger student population. Transferability is easy to understand when you consider that we are constantly applying this concept to aspects of our daily lives. If there were many similarities, you might try to draw conclusions about how increasing the amount of prewriting your students do would impact their ability to arrive at sufficiently narrow paper topics. In doing so, you would be attempting to transfer the composition researcher’s techniques to your own classroom. American drivers also generalize that everyone will drive on the right hand side of the road. Yet if we try to generalize this assumption to other settings, such as England, we will be making a potentially disastrous mistake.