RSaM2 Flashcards Preview

Research Methods > RSaM2 > Flashcards

Flashcards in RSaM2 Deck (17)
Loading flashcards...

What two things should you look for in critiquing the abstract?

1. Does the abstract accurately represent the article?

2. Is the abstract specific?


What six things should you look for in critiquing the introduction?

1. Is the relevant literature cited?

2. Is the literature correctly interpreted?

3. Are any points overemphasised?

4. Are any points underemphasised/ignored?

5. Is the purpose of the article clear?

6. Is the research question made clear?


There are two things, each with three sub-sections, that you should look for in critiquing the method section - what are they?

1. Is the method appropriate for the purpose of the study (i.e. for answering the research question)?
a. appropriate sample?
b. appropriate measure?
c. appropriate procedure?

2. Is there enough detail in the method to be able to replicate the study?
a. Is the sample described adequately?
b. Are the materials described adeqautely?
c. Is the specific procedure described adequately?


What 3 things should you consider in critiquing your results section?

1. Are the statistical tests appropriate?

2. Are the results described in enough detail?

3. Is there any visualisation of the results (i.e. graph, plot, table?


In the results sections, when you are looking at whether the results have been described in enough detail - what 3 details are you looking for specifically?

1. Measure of central tendency AND measure of variability (e.g. mean and SD/range)

2. Name of specific statistical tests

3. If there were post-hoc tests (e.g. for ANOVA), were the post-hoc tests named?


What 5 things should you consider in critiquing the discussion?

1. Are the results correctly interpreted?

2. Are the conclusions valid?

3. Are there any other explanations for the findings? If so, are these explanations acknowledge?

4. Are the limitations of the study acknowledged? Are possible solutions to these limitations discussed?

5. Does the author offer future directions?


What 4 things should you consider in relation to the title? (remember - analyse title at the end)

1. Does it reflect the nature of the study?

2. Does it mention the IV and DV, any specific theoretical approach and the population sampled?

3. Is it easily searchable?

4. Is it concise?


What should the abstract include? (Do last) 7 points

1. Brief description of the aim of the study

2. IV and DV mentioned

3. Participants' age range, gender, sampling method, population

4. Methods of grouping, control, randomisation

5. Design type

6. Statistical tests and whether restults were sig or non sig (dont include actual values)

7. Conclusions drawn from results


Based on the RSaM handout - what should you remember generally re intro?

1. Goes from general to specific

2. Clear and sensible definitions of essential concepts

3. Situates the current study in the general literature

4. At the end there should be a statement of the hypotheses/aims of the study

5. Is it an exploratory study for which there is little literature at present? OR is it testing a well-established construct/theory?


Based on the RSaM handout, what should the structure of the introduction be?

1. Initial brief discussion of the general area and informal statement of the aim of the study

2. Summary of relevant literature highlighting important theories/studies and description of how the current study adds to this knowledge base

3. Define the IV and the DV

4. End with a formal statement of the hypothesis


What should you remember about the design (RSaM report)? (4 points)

1. What design was used? Within/between groups?

2. The IVs and levels at which they were presented

3. The DV what is actually being measured

4. Any ways that confounding variables have been controlled for?


What 4 sections should be present in the method section?

1. Design

2. Participants

3. Apparatus/Materials

4. Procedure


What 7 details should be given on participants?

1. Age range and mean OR mean and SD

2. Gender breakdown

3. No. of participants

4. Population participants were drawn from

6. How participants were allocated to groups

7. ethnic makeup


What should be included in the materials section?

1. Full description of any pieces of equipment and tests used

2. Description of the location of the experiment (e.g. lab, on computer etc.)


What should be included in the procedure section? 3 things

1. Full description of the experience of the participant and of the course of the experiment.

2. Are confounding variables and individual differences being controlled for?

3. Is there more than one experimental trial?


What should you include in the results section? (Based on RSaM report) 6 points

1. A full breakdown of the results as they apply to each hypothesis in the lit review

2. Full description of all statistical analyses (inc. post hoc tests)

3. P values, tests for normality, measures of variability

4. Clear visual depictions of results (graphs, tables) - are they clearly labelled?

5. Are insignificant as well as significant results reported?

6. Results of descriptives as they apply to participants?


What of the discussion be based on RSaM report?

1. Statement of whether hypotheses were supported or not

2. If hypothesis unsupported then why not? (design flaw? Another theoretical
framework better?)

3. Discussion on the implications of the results on the field in question, making reference to literature from introduction

4. If new literature is introduced is there justification provided for why?

5. Limitations (design flaws? confounding variables?)

6. Future research

7. conclusion