Design Critique #1 Describing and Proposing



Research Critique #1 Describing and Proposing

To help when reading the following, ectomorphs are "skinny", mesomorphs are "athletic" and endomorphs are "chunky".

Describing Fletcher & Deikhoff

1. What had the researchers read that prompted the research? (As you read the introduction, notice that most statements about "what we know" are supported by multiple references -- a nice combination of concise and convincing !!)

2. What is the research hypothesis of this study? What type is this RH: ? If causal, tell is the causal variable and the effect variable in this hypothesis?

3. Participants

• What “label” is used for the participants? Who is the implied population?

• What does the sampling frame seem to be?

• Any concerns about using this sample?

4. Describe the design used in this study. Is it appropriate for testing the RH: Why or why not?

5. Describe the data collection procedures used

• Type of data?

• Type of setting?

• Primary or Archival data?

6. What type of assignment was used? Will the assignment process provide initial equivalence?

7. Can you identify any ongoing equivalence problems or confounds?

8. Describe the major results of the study. Do these results support the RH:?

9. The authors note some limitations of the study that are stated (don't worry about the Type I Statistical Error stuff for now). Which of these can be "improved upon" and which ones are we "stuck with"?

Describing Clefty

1. What had the researcher read that prompted the research?

2. What is the research hypothesis of this study. What type is this RH: ? If causal, tell is the causal variable and the effect variable in this hypothesis?

3. Participants

• What “label” is used for the participants? Who is the implied population?

• What does the sampling frame seem to be?

• Any concerns about using this sample?

4. Describe the design used in this study. Is it appropriate for testing the RH: Why or why not?

5. Describe the data collection procedures used

• Type of data?

• Type of setting?

• Primary or Archival data?

6. What type of assignment was used? Will the assignment process provide initial equivalence?

7. Can you identify any ongoing equivalence problems or confounds?

8. Describe the major results of the study. Do these results support the RH:?

9. These authors don't provide a list of the limitations of the study. But you always should generate your own list and consider it when deciding whether or not to add the information from this study to you "store of psychological knowledge" and when planning future research. List at least three limitations below and indicate which of these can be "improved upon" and which ones are we "stuck with".

Combining the two studies to propose new research

Both of these studies considered issues related to possible inappropriate influences of therapist’s evaluations. Broadly speaking, Fletcher & Deikhoff demonstrated that even trained professionals allow body image to influence their impressions of other people, and Clefty demonstrated that initial evaluations of some characteristics can influence the evaluations of others, even when there is contrary information (which seems to get ignored).

While there is no "formula" for combining the information from two studies into a novel research idea, there are a few basic approaches that can lead to new research ideas, such as…

Extending a research finding to another population. Example -- you critique two articles that demonstrate there is a relationship between locus of control (a measure of the extent to which a person believes that "internal" versus "external" forces control their lives) and consistency of contraceptive use in college-aged students, and propose a study of whether these two constructs are related in high school students. (An obvious variation on this is to critique two articles that deal with two populations and propose research involving a third.)

• What was the population from which the participants in these two studies were taken?

• What other population might be interesting to study, to see if the results from that population parallel the results you read?

• Would the RH: and basic design change? If so, how?

Extending a research finding to another situation. Example -- you critique two articles that demonstrate the utility of a treatment in one situation (say, inpatient therapy) and propose a study of whether this same technique can profitably be applied in a different situation (say, outpatient therapy).

• What was the settingused in these two studies?

• What other setting might be interesting to study, to see if the results from that population parallel the results you read?

• Would the RH: and basic design change? If so, how?

Explicit comparison of two procedures/techniques/treatments that have each been compared to some control, but not to each other. Example -- "first article" demonstrates that cognitive-behavioral technique "A" for social anxiety works better than a control treatment, the "second article" demonstrates that cognitive-behavioral technique "B" also works better than a control, and you propose a direct comparison of techniques "A" and "B".

• What was the IV in the first study? In the second?

• How could you “compare” the impact of these to , to see if one has greater impact on therapists evaluations than the other?

• What would be the RH: and basic design for this study?

Resolving apparent contradictions is another good basis for proposed research. Sometimes two articles that seem to be contradicting each other aren't really comparable, because of differences in the population, materials, or procedures that were used. For example: The "first article' finds a relationship between locus of control (using Rotter's I-E scale) and consistency of contraceptive use (measured as a self-report of the % sexual encounters when contraceptive was used) in college students. However, a "second article" reports finding no relationship between locus of control (using Hareleson's controlling forces index) and consistency of contraceptive use (measured as whether or not they used a contraceptive each time they have had sex) in high school students. You would note that there are three differences between these studies (the population used, the measure of locus of control, the measure of contraceptive consistency) and propose a study that uses all four measures in both populations. This approach isn't always available -- there has to be a contradiction, and it has to have gone unnoticed (except by you).

This one is difficult to apply to the two articles you’ve just read. But, for the exercise, imagine that the secnd study (Clefty, 2004) had found no relationship between initial and final evaluations. The researcher might then have concluded that, “Therapist’s judgments of patient’s characteristics have no impact on their clinical evaluations” and so, the general conclusions of the two articles would differ.

• Identify the differences between the studies that might account for the difference in outcomes (using the modified outcome for Clefty given just above).

• Select one and design a study to examine if it produced the apparent contradiction

Perhaps the most common basis for proposing new research is to combine two findings to predict a third. For example: The 'first article" reports a relationship between how well people can interpret body language (e.g., that folks tend to lean towards a speaker who is saying something in which they are interested but to lean away from one who is not) and how well they enjoy conversations with strangers. The "second article" reports that many socially anxious people say they don't like starting conversations with people they don't know well, because they don't enjoy the conversations. Combining these two findings, you propose research to test the hypothesis that teaching socially anxious people how to more accurately interpret body language will lead them to better enjoy conversations with people they don't know.

For these studies: 1) Fletcher & Deikhoff demonstrated that even trained professionals allow body image to influence their impressions of other people and 2) Clefty demonstrated that even trained professionals allow initial impressions of patients to influence their final evaluation of therapeutic outcomes.

• How might you combine these two “effects”?

• What would be the RH: and basic design to study this “combined effect”?

Grading

Completion of steps in the assignment ______ 10

Quality/completeness of proposed designs

& Research hypotheses ______ 10

Total Graded Points ______ - ________ (points lost - why?)

-----------------------

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1998, 86, 842.

BODY-TYPE STEREOTYPING IN THERAPEUTIC JUDGMENTS*

CHRIS FLETCHER AND GEORGE M. DIEKHOFF

Midwestern State University

Summary. Twenty-three professional psychotherapists rated line drawings of three clients' body types on 21 clinically relevant personal characteristics. Professionals rated ectomorphic and endomorphic clients less favorably than mesomorphic clients.

It is often assumed that professional psychotherapists keep personal biases out of the therapeutic process, but value-free therapy may be unrealistic (Hardy & Johnson, 1992). The present study was undertaken to test our hypothesis that body-type stereotyping (Young & Powell, 1985) affects the clinical judgments of professional therapists.

Method Twenty-three professional therapists (who were members of a local professional organization of nearly 100 psychotherapists, with a mean of 13 years experience) were the participants in this study. The stimuli were three drawings of male patients of three different body types, one endomorphic, one mesomorphic, and one ectomorphic, as identified by Rozin and Fallon (1991). The drawings were shown in a randomized order for each participant. On each of 63 trials a participant rated one of the three hypothetical clients on one of 21 5-point scales to assess clinically relevant personal characteristics (e.g., maladjustment, prognosis, amenability to treatment, willingness to complete treatment, etc. ).

Results A series of analyses, using the 21 client characteristics dependent variables, indicated the mesomorphs were rated more favorably than either the endomorphs or ectomorphs on 15 of 21 characteristics. On no scale were extreme body types rated more favorably than the mesomorphs.

Limitations of the study include use of highly artificial stimuli, asking participants to rate clients without the usual background information, relatively small samples, and an inflated study-wise wise Type I error rate resulting from multiple, statistically dependent tests of significance. However, results are consistent with the conclusion that clients' body types may influence clinically relevant evaluations of both professional psychotherapists.

*This article is much modified from the original, with apologies to the authors.

Perceptual and Motor Skrlls,2004, 92, 769-770.

DO THERAPIST’S INITIAL EVALUATIONS INFLUENCE PATIENT OUTCOME ?*

EDGAR F. CLEFTY

University of Sendrein

Summary. – Therapists are responsible for both initial evaluations of patients and the final evaluation of their therapeutic outcome. While both of these are important, the final evaluation has a long-lasting effect upon the livelihood and social acceptance of patients. Our research suggests that initial negative therapeutic evaluations have an undue impact on later evaluations of the same patients.

The important role of trained therapists to evaluate and integrate patient information has long been an important part of therapeutic training and practice ( Winston & Lackey, 1968; Zephmeier, 2004). Recent work has called into quesiton therapist objectivity during the therapeutic process (Hardy & Johnson, 1992). We undertook the present study to determine whether therapists allowed their initial evaluations of patients to influence their final outcome evaluations of the same patients.

Method Licensed psychotherapists were recruited at the annual convention of the New York Psychological Association; 84 completed the research protocol. Data collection had two phases. The week after the convention, participants were mailed 10 sets of patient intake files, which included the results of a structured interview and profiles from the MMPI, CMI, and NEO. Participants rated each patient on 18 characteristics generally held to related to therapeutic outcome (Glisten & Blankenship, 2002). Eighteen months later, the same participants were mailed one patient file to evaluate on five outcome variables (e.g., therapeutic success, necessity of further treatment; Babcock, 2002). This file included the original intake file for that patient, the therapist’s evaluation of the 18 characteristics, and final evaluation files (supposedly from a recent re-administration of the same structured interview and measures as the intake file). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a case they had given positive initial evaluations of the 18 characteristics, or one they had given negative initial evaluations. Also, the final evaluation file for all patients was exactly the same.

Results Statistical analyses revealed that final evaluations of the two groups of therapists were significantly different on all five of the ontcome variables. For each variable, those therapists who rated patients with initially better characteristics gave better outcome ratings than did those therapists who rated patients with initially poorer characteristics.

Since the final evaluation file for all patients was exactly the same, these results strongly suggest that therapists allow their initial patient ratings to influence their patient outcome evaluatioins. Further research is necessary to investigate this phenomema and to determine if it is possible to counteract this effect, perhaps by using the sort of “extra-therapeutic evaluative system” propsed recently (Clefty, 2001).

Assignment grade out of 20 points __________

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download