Lecture 4 - research methods with special populations

Question 1

special populations

Answer 1

• specific pop with unique & distinct psych social or behavioural characteristics looked at for specific reason
• inc people with experiences e.g. victims, learning disabilities, offenders, vulnerable, witnesses
• why?
  > to understand specific psych mechanisms
  > develop targeted treatments or interventions
  > understand how psych processes may vary across groups
• additional ethical and methodological considerations

Question 2

forensic psychology

Answer 2

• the application of psychology within the legal system to create sager communities and assist people to find pathways away from criminal behaviour
• e.g. polics, courts, CJS
• key pops:
  > victims
  > offenders
  > people in contact with CJS
  > professionals

Question 3

importance of forensic psychology

Answer 3

• sex offender treatment programmes - dec reoffending by addressing psych issues (behavioural intervention). focuses on cog distortions, empathy dev & behavioural interventions. have to prove they are no longer a risk
• MOJ the effects of SOTP in 2012 - Hopkins - prisoners in SOTP more likely to offend. but MOJ suggested this treatment was not of sufficient quality and method needed changing to remove risk of bias
• 2017 redone analysis (Mews et al 2017) - 10% offenders who completed SOTP committed at least 1 offence vs 8% of those who had not received this treatment. for offences inc explicit images reoffending was 4.4% vs 2.9%.
  = SOTP terminated in march 2017
• Ward & willis (2010) - we are balancing needs and risks of many people

Question 4

research methods with the law

Answer 4

• when working with law need to adhere to contempt of court act (cannot discuss anything that happens in jury room or how decision is made)
• mock juries - simulated trials. vignettes mean can manipulate factors e.g. gender, ethnicity. can’t generalise to real juries. (+ control ext variables - cant generalise)
• interviews & surveys of ex-jurors (+ real jurors, large sample - cog bias of respondents)
• archival studies of jury verdicts (+ rich source of data & real deliberations - limited no. variables, case differences)
• shadow jury - can send a mock panel of jurors to see what would affect their decision

Question 5

vignette based studies

Answer 5

• vignette based studies - take story and change variables & pp only sees one condition. can manipulate newspaper stories to seem real. can assess risk.
• Barter & Reynold (1999) - vignettes must be:
  > realistic & easy
  > appropriate format (video)
  > provide sufficient context
  > include control vignette
• Bornstein (1999)
  > little evidence mpck juror studies do not generalise. yet lack eco validity
  > stage 1 - simple methods (establish effects) > stage 2 (realistic methods e.g. actors)

Question 6

qualitative methods

Answer 6

• Grounded theory - discover of theory from data.
  > inductive - generate the theory
  > aimed at generating theories from data than texting hypotheses
  > useful for areas & demographics that have had little research
  > gather rich in depth data bout a topic
  > theory generated should then tested by people.
  steps
  1. collect data
  2. analyse data
  3. theoretical sampling (interative)
  4. theory
• Horsley - grounded theory of arsonists. found little treatment to reduce their risks. developed a theory which led to developing intervention to reduce arousal, release etc.
• limitations of GT:
  > time consuming
  > subjectivity & researcher bias
  > potential for over-theorising
  > too open ended?

Question 7

interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA)

Answer 7

• qual approach
• how people make snese of major life exp (smith 1996)
• seeks to interpret how exp are understood by the indiv
• double hermeneutic: the researcher is trying to make sense of the pp who is trying to make sense of their world (smith & osborn 2015)
• voice of pp is central
• similar to TA but draws connections between subjects experiences and differences
• stages:
  1. reading & re reading
  2. initial notations
  3. developing emergent themes
  4. draw connections across emergent themes
  5. moving to next case
  6. looking for unique features within and between cases
  7. LIWC
• are intervire practices being used correctly? webster (2022) quotes of IPA suggest little interviewer support. developed suggestions e.g. softer lighting

Question 8

limitations of IPA

Answer 8

• double hermeneutics = difficulty
• depends on pp’s ability to articulate experiences
• risk of over intrepretation
• challenging recruitment e.g. police, charities, victims. typically less pp’s

Question 9

clinical single case studies

Answer 9

• detailed insights into specific cases that may have important implications for practice and theory development
• can offer a rich and in depth analysis of indiv or small no. cases
• rare phenomena
• need to keep open mind. no a piori theoetical notions
• narrative like - starts with history of indiv and bg of them.
• substantial amount of info that is needed e.g. clinician notes
• limitations
  > limited generalisability
  > potential researcher bias
  > lack of control over confounding variables
  > cannot establish causation

Question 10

randomised controlled trials (evaluation method)

Answer 10

• gold standard rigorous approach
• two or more groups are compared e.g. one has treatment and one does not
• high degree of control e.g. how we match people, placebos matched etc.
• measure effectiveness of a new intervention or treatment
• often used in clinical and forensic psych e.g. music therapy, VR aggression therapy, interventions

Question 11

limitations of RCT

Answer 11

• placebo challenges (brown 2010) - what is the placebo in certain scenarios
• blinding issues - obvious who is in what group
• neg behaviour risk (campbell 2003) someone not gievn same opp to reduce reoffending
• alt RCT design = two treatment design but compromises gold standard
• ethical & risk issues (Marshall & pithers 1994) - limits someones opp to receive intervention may put public at risk

Question 12

cost-benefit analysis

Answer 12

• do benefits of intervention outweigh its costs
• a detailed estimation of all costs of an intervention against benefits
• can be challenging to calc
• circles of support and accountability (community intervention) - aim to support sex offender risk management at point of community re-entry
  > circles of volunteers provide support ensuring offender remains accountable. meets regularly.
  > can never know full extent of costs to society as can be tangible and intangible
• limitations of cost benefit analysis
  > difficult to measure social and psych outcomes
  > oversimplifies complex interventions
  > ethical concerns. seems to be driven by money but have to acknowledge political & wider world
  > difficulty in measuring LT benefits. snapshot and may not have impact until later on?
  > neglect of qualitative impact

Question 13

process evaluation

Answer 13

• examines whether a treatment or intervention is being or has been implemented as planned or expected and is being given to appropriate individuals
• used to assure quality treatment. also looks at barriers
• can be as being developed or once developed.
• can adopt qual and/or quant methods e.g. peoples perspectives, peoples interviews etc
• drug recovery prison at HMP holme launched intervention to address alcohol and drug supply/demand improve treatment outcomes & support recovery. assessed implementation, provide rollout and capture experiences.

Question 14

limitations of process evaluation

Answer 14

• bias in data collection
• resource constraints
• limited g as focuses on specific people
• focus on implementation > impact
• some people against interventions

Question 15

ethical considerations - forensic psychologist

Answer 15

• daily tasks inc: creating formulations of offence or other behaviours, delivering evidence informed psychological therapy, supporting evidence informed policy & focus on recovery/reconnection, evaluate & recommend changes to care
• work in many settings

Question 16

ethical considerations - HCPC

Answer 16

• protects the public by regulating 15 health & care orofessions in UK inc practitioner psychologists
• set standards for professionals ed, training & practice
  1. promote and protect the interests of service users and carers
  2. communicate appropriately and effectively
  3. work within the limits of knowledge & skill
  4. delegate appropriately
  5. respect confidentiality
  6. manage risk
  7. report concerns about safety
  8. be open & honest
  9. honest and trustworthy
  10. keep records of work

Question 17

ethical considerations - BPS for forensic psychologists

Answer 17

• BPS code of ethics & conduct - designed to guide all members of BPS in day to day conduct
• BPS code of human research ethics & guidelines - general principles applicable to research inc humans
• BPS practice guidelines for applied psychologists - shared guidelines for practice & applied psychologists

Question 18

ethical considerations - HMPPS (within prisons)

Answer 18

• formally apply for research approvale to HMPPS national research committee
• NRC ensures
  > research applicant, MoJ and HMPPS attain best value from research
  > resource implications and impact is considered
  > robustness and relevance assessed
  > data protection/security & research ethics dealt with
• safety and security clearance
  > need to be cleared in advance
  > may need training
  > aware of prohibited items
• practicalities: dress code, colours, prison staff escorting

Question 19

ethical considerations - other organisations

Answer 19

• NHS
  > data collection in NHS or relates to health in prisons or indivs over 16 who lack mental capacity to give IC
  > need ro formally apply for approval
• police
  > apply via approval process
  > can vary whether you want to access data or recruit pps

Question 20

ethical considerations

Answer 20

• dual role issue - when psychologist acts in 2 different roles at once e.g. researcher & therapeutic practitioner. key concerns:
  > power imbalance
  > voluntary consent compromise
  > role confusion
  > confidentiality dilemma e.g. research people are anonymous
• mitigating dual role issues
  > separate roles
  > clear boundaries
  > 3rd party recruitment
  > emphasise voluntary participation

Question 21

informed consent

Answer 21

• 3 components (overholser 1987)
  1. competence
• pp’s ability to provide IC
• is pp legally and mentally competent to make decisions
  2. knowledge
• info provided to pp’s about project
• must be full, complete and transparent to allow pp’s to make informed decision
  3. volition
• free will of pp’s to consent to participation
• participation must be entirely voluntary, without coercion, pressure or manipulation