REGISTRATION FOR RDA IIB

Notice Regarding Registration for Research Design & Analysis IIB:

If you have registered for RDA IIB, or are considering doing so, please note the following:

1.     The course code for RDA IIB is PSYC2006. It is only offered on the full-time schedule in the B-slot.

2.     If you have achieved a mark of at least 60% for RDA IIA (either PSYC2005 or PSYC2012), you may register for RDA IIB. However, please note that the marks for RDA IIA were somewhat higher on average than they have been in previous years, and we would not recommend registering for RDA IIB unless you have achieved a mark of at least 65% for RDA IIA.

3.     There are no other requirements to register for RDA IIB, but students should bear in mind that the course is not compulsory for the major in Psychology and does not have to be taken as part of a degree with a major in Psychology. It is however recommended for those students who are seriously considering postgraduate studies in Psychology, and is extremely useful in terms of extending practical understanding of how to conduct research.

4.     Students who have not yet registered for RDA IIB and would like to do so now will need to collect an amendment of registration form from their Faculty, fill in the course code “PSYC2006” under “courses to be added”, bring this to the Department of Psychology for a signature of approval, and then return the form to Faculty. Students must follow up with Faculty to ensure their registration is changed accordingly within the week provided for amendments, i.e. all changes to registration must be finalised by Friday 20th July.

5.      Any student who is currently registered for PSYC2006 (RDA IIB) but who did not obtain a mark of 60% or more for RDA IIA must deregister from the course within the first week of the second semester i.e. by Friday 20th July. To de-register, students should collect an amendment of registration form from their Faculty, fill in the course code “PSYC2006” under “courses to be dropped”, bring this to the Department of Psychology for a signature of approval, and then return the form to Faculty. Students must follow up with Faculty to ensure their registration is changed accordingly within the week provided for amendments.

If you have any queries regarding the above information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,

Kevin

Link to RDA final marks

PSYC 2005 provsional marks may be accessed at:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Am7uz368AQc4dFpCaW1CXzEwRXd4bzFtTUtQcmdOZ2c

RDA IIA MARKS ARE AVAILABLE

The department has released provisional marks for all Psychology courses. These have been put up on the noticeboards on the mezzanine level between the ground and first floor of Umthombo Building

Notice re: examination marks

The Department is hoping to publish provisional june exam marks during the last week of the break (after 9 July 2012).

A notice will be placed on the course blog as soon as the marks are released

Thanks

Kevin

Item discrimination/item analysis

Please ignore all questions in past papers on item analysis and item discrimination. You have not covered this in the course this year GOOD LUCK FOR MONDAY!

RESEARCH DESIGN REVISION LECTURE: MAY/JUNE 2011 PAPER

MAY/JUNE EXAMINATION 2011

SECTION A Research Design – Dr Sumaya Laher & Ms Nicky Israel

Question 1

a)    Quantitative

Tests a hypothesis that the researcher begins with; concepts in the form of distinct variables; measures standardized and systematically created before data collection; data in the form of numbers; focus on objective facts and causal and deductive theory; procedures are standard and replication is possible, analysis conducted using statistics etc…

b)    Protection and welfare of participant; informed consent; use of deception; debriefing; right to withdraw/voluntary nature participation; confidentiality and/or anonymity; differential treatment of the two groups etc…

Question 2

a)    Is a 14-session cognitive behavioural program effective in improving intrinsic mottion?

b)    IV = Cognitive behavioural program
c)    Operationalisation of the IV = participants divided into groups, one group received the intervention, the other did not  
d)    DV = Motivation
e)    Working definition of the DV = “Intrinsic motivation is defined as engaging in activity purely for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from that activity while extrinsic motivation is defined as performing an activity in order to obtain a separate outcome”
f)     Operationalisation of the DV = Sport Motivation Scale (SMS) –
g)    Measurement validity. Any sensible argument re whether the operationalisation of the DV (i.e. use of the SMS) was appropriate for the study or not

Question 3
a)    IV (intervention) manipulated, given to one group and withheld from the other; Experimental and control group, one receiving treatment, one not; Random assignment; True experimental design;Pre-test, post-test control group design
b)    Advantage: causality
Disadvantage: artificiality and generalizability

d)    Advantage: can be administered to large numbers of people, time and cost efficient, provide a type of 'anonymity', yield valuable descriptive information about broad trends
Disadvantage: application from one population / demographic area to another, low rate of questionnaire – return, ambiguous replies, depends on the truthfulness of the subject

 Question 4

a)    Temporal precedence - IV manipulated
Covariation - control and experimental group
Non-spuriousness – random assignment but can never be established completely
Therefore, researcher was justified in making causal conclusions to a high degree
i) Diffusion – could/not impact the study as group attended separate sessions but were from the same community and may have had contact etc…
ii) Selection Bias – could not impact the study as there was random assignment
b)    Testing is a threat because pretest and posttest are the same test or any sensible variation thereof
Can be countered by post-test only or Solomon four groups or parallel versions of the test – any one sensible suggestion
Differential attrition could be a threat because passage indicates individuals dropping out and different numbers dropping out from the two groups or any sensible variation thereof
Can be countered by having sacrifice groups or similar suggestion

Question 5

a)    Sample = Sixty-five students from the University of the Witwatersrand (48 male, 17 female) who enrolled in and completed an introductory cricket course as part of their physical education course
b)    Sampling technique = non-probability, convenience sample, volunteers
c)    Population = characteristics of the sample compared to those of the population  
Ecological = degree to which it is appropriate to generalize from one context to another
d)    Any critical point with reference to ecological or population validity –
e)    Replication, triangulation, choose random sample, more representative sample, larger sample or any other two sensible suggestions

Question 6

a)    Independent t-tests are appropriate because they indicate whether there is a significant difference between the mean scores of two independent groups – in this case the experimental and control group would be independent / any reference to parametric assumptions being met
b)    Statistical conclusion validity
c)    Qualitative paradigm
With any sensible justification – focus groups, subjective, interactive method, data in the form of words, extract themes, greater depth of info

SECTION B Psychometrics – Ms Nicky Israel

Question 1
a)    Embody the knowledge and expertise of others; developed more objectively and scrutinized more carefully than other forms of data collection; represent a collective understanding of a phenomenon; assign numbers to characteristics and allow for the use of statistics; allow for standards of performance to be compared etc…
b)    Closed-ended, Likert-type scale (from Does not correspond at all to Corresponds exactly)
C)    Objective scoring rules: scoring rules guarantee the same outcome
d)    Criterion-based: interpreted by comparison against a set standard

Question 2
a)    Consistency of test scores, extent to which scores affected by random error, poor reliability suggests poor validity etc...
b)    Test-retest reliability
The range indicates moderate to high stability and motivation over three to six months would not necessarily change that much so these estimates would not be unexpected
c)    Internal consistency reliability
Kuder-Richardson 20, Spearman Brown
d)    Internal consistency estimates are affected by the number of items in the scale and the average inter-item correlation. Each subscale measures a different aspect of motivation, and therefore one would not necessarily expect items from the one scale to relate that well to items from the other scale, which would affect the estimate. By calculating internal consistency for each scale, one can assume that all the items in the subscale should relate – 2 marks

Question 3
a)    No, reliability indicates whether the test provides consistent measurement – if the measurement is not consistent, it cannot then assess what it claims or purports to assess (validity) because it has not been shown to assess anything at all
b)    Construct validity – relationship between test scores and measures of other, un/related constructs and behaviours
Convergent validity - expect relationships between scores and scores on the Motivation for Physical Activities Measure-Revised and measures of dedication
Convergent validity – expect relationship between scores and absenteeism from training
c)    Construct validity - relationship between test scores and measures of other, un/related constructs and behaviours
Discriminant validity – do not expect relationship between gender or race and test scores
d)    Criterion-related validity – relationship between test scores and an independent outcome measure
Concurrent validity – assessed in a pre-selected, restricted group  
e)    Content validity/Face validity

Question 4

a)    Bias = systematic error
Fairness= value judgement re decisions/way test used
b)    Fairness – relates to how the test was used
c)    Similar strong correlations with related constructs observed for all groups; similar weak correlations for unrelated constructs observed for all groups; predictions follow same pattern for all groups
d)    Any four sensible points related to bias and the SMS
e)    Any two sensible points related to cultural bias and the exemplar items

Question 6
a)    Inheritance of policies and practices; attitudes to testing; bias; new legislation; multiculturalism/linguilism; resources etc…
b)    Dynamic assessment; computerized/ adaptive testing; interviews etc…

PSYC2005 (RDA IIA) Exam I (Statistics) October/November 2011

PSYC2005 (RDA IIA) Exam I (Statistics) October/November 2011   Question 1 a)      Correlation (use formula for Pearson’s r). The answer is r = + 0.1229 b)      Very weak, positive linear relationship – although yearmark and exam mark move in the same direction, they are only very weakly related.   Question 2 i)        Comparison of two groups (librarians and designers) – no reason to link a specific librarian to a specific designer therefore two independent groups. Assume parametric therefore run a t-test for two independent samples. ii)       Null hypothesis would be H0: Mu 1 = Mu 2 (or Mu p = Mu q) iii)     Alternate hypothesis would be H1: Mu 1 not equal to Mu 2 (or Mu p not equal to Mu 2) because told to test for a difference iv)     Alpha = 0.05 v)      n is 10 for group 1 and 10 for group 2, the degree of freedom is therefore 10 plus 10 minus 2 which is 18.  The test statistic would be t18 = 1.4574. vi)     The critical areas would be 0.025 in each tail; the corresponding critical values from t-tables would be 2.101 and -2.101. vii)   1.4574 is outside the critical areas therefore Fail to Reject H0 at alpha = 0.05. viii)  There is insufficient evidence at the 0.05 level of significance to believe that there is a significant difference between the librarians and designers in mean time to recognize the word.   Question 3 Sampling distribution: Mean IQ (x-bar) is distributed normally with a mean of 100 and a variance of 16-squared over 36 (standard deviation of 16 over the square root of 36). The probability that the average IQ is at least 102 (i.e. greater than 102) is 0.2266 (z =  0.75).   Question 4 i)        Comparison of three groups, parametric therefore ANOVA ii)       Null hypothesis would be H0: Mu 1 equal to Mu 2 = Mu 3 (all the means are equal) iii)     Alternate hypothesis would be H1: at least one pair of means not equal iv)     Alpha equals 0.05 v)      SS error  = 511.46, k = 3, df between = 2, N = 30, df error = 27, df total = 29, MS between = 90.535, MS error = 18.943, test statistic is F (2; 27) = 4.7793 vi)     The critical area would be 0.05 in the right tail; the corresponding critical value from F-tables would be 3.35.  vii)   4.7793 is inside the critical area therefore Reject H0 at alpha = 0.05. viii)  There is sufficient evidence at the 0.05 level of significance to believe that there is a significant difference between the time to complete the task between at least two of the conditions   Question 5 i)        Association between two nominal variables (gender – male/ female and driving speed – below limit, at limit, above limit) therefore Chi-squared test of association  ii)       Null hypothesis would be H0: there is no relationship between gender and driving speed iii)     Alternate hypothesis would be H1: there is a relationship between gender and driving speed  iv)     Alpha equals 0.05 v)      The test statistic would be Chi-squared 2 = 35.796 (please refer to hand out for steps). vi)     The critical area would be 0.05 in the right tail but please use the non-directional row on the table; the corresponding critical value from Chi-squared -tables would be 5.99.  vii)   35.796 is inside the critical area therefore Reject H0 at alpha = 0.05. viii)  There is sufficient evidence at the 0.05 level of significance to believe that there is a relationship between gender and driving speed   Question 6   a)      IV = dominance = nominal; DV = span in centimetres = ratio. Comparison of two linked measurements (groups) therefore matched. DV is at least interval, no other information given re other parametric assumptions (although the sample size is 15 which is too small for Central Limit Theorem to apply and could indicate that the data might not be normally distributed). If assume the other parametric assumptions, including normality, are met, could run a parametric matched pairs t-test; if assume the other assumptions, for example, normality, are not met, would run a Wilcoxan’s MPSR test.  b)      IV = background risk factors composite score – at least ordinal (probably interval); DV = substance abuse score – at least ordinal (probably interval). Assessing relationship therefore use correlation/ regression. c)       IV = TV programme type = nominal; DV = serotonin level  measurement = interval (could argue ratio). Comparison of four groups, DV is at least interval, no other information re parametric assumptions is given. Assuming these are met, could run a parametric ANOVA, if not met could run a Kruskal-Wallis. d)      IV = reading ability = nominal; DV = IQ = interval. One group/sample compared to a population where the standard deviation/ variance for the population is known, therefore use a z-test e)      IV = TV viewership = nominal; DV = annual income = nominal. Relationship between two nominal variables therefore use a Chi-squared test of association.     Question 7 a)      False, zero represents the absence of measurement on a ratio scale. b)      False, a statistic can take on different values and is therefore not fixed. c)       False, the dependent variable in a regression line can be accurately estimated using any value that is within the range of recorded values for the independent variable. Outside this range is extrapolation. d)      True, sample size is n and the standard deviation of the sampling distribution is sigma over the square root of n. As n gets larger, one would divide by a larger number and the answer would get smaller. e)      False, the null hypothesis assumes the status quo i.e. no change and the alternate hypothesis proposes what the experimenter would like to prove.