SOSHANI AND STEINMETZ (2014)- EVALUATION/ ISSUES AND DEBATES Flashcards
(10 cards)
Summarise the strengths and weaknesses of Soshani & Steinmetz (2014)?
- Strength- ecological validity, longitidunal validity.
- Weakness- limited generalisbility, self-report bias
Strength- econological validity?
Evidence- real-life, naturalistric school setting. Mundane realism- programme admistered by staff.
Effect- Reflects typical school enviroment, and behaviours- thus can be generalised beyond research context.
Strength- Longitudinal design?
Evidence- over 2 year intervention with follow ups after each academic year.
Effect- allows researchers to see HOW ppts improved- whether these improvements could be sustained over time (vital for evaluating the efficacy of MH programms in school)
Weakness- generalisbility?
Evidence: Mostly jewish students, Israel, one school enviroment
Effect- Limits gernalisbility to wider population, different schools (low-income) etc
Weakness- Self report bias?
Evidence: 5 self-report methdologies were used- which relied on self-reported data.
Effect- subjective, affected by recal bias, social desirability, demand characteristics (must report improvements), recall bias, level of self-awareness.
Ethics?
Protection from harm-The control group later was given access to the intervention after the study, to ensure they were not negatively influenced by the study.
Application to real life?
practical applications for education policy, school well-being programs, and mental health prevention strategies (vital due to MH crisis amongst youth- Huebner et al 2000)
Nurture or nature?
nurture- psychological well-being can be improved through external interventions and positive environments
nature- baseline results also suggest some differences (e.g., due to social class or gender) that may be influenced by a mix of biological and environmental factors.
freewill?
individuals can gain control over their thoughts and emotions (e.g., increase self-efficacy) through structured interventions.
