Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Research and Experimentation (2)
Research and Experimentation (2)
75302300150, P169
DIV: A BATCH I
2. What happens when we mix mindfulness with talking therapy for kids feeling sad?
3. Can therapy help kids who've been through really tough stuff feel better for a long time?
4. Do parents' own problems make it harder for their kids to benefit from therapy?
5. What gets in the way of bringing therapy into schools, and how can we fix it?
7. Can therapy teach kids with behavior problems how to handle their feelings better?
8. How can we change therapy to work better for kids from different cultures?
9. Do kids feel better when they do therapy with other kids like them?
10. Can using cool technology like virtual reality make therapy more helpful for kids who are
scared of certain things?
Hypotheses - The formulation of hypotheses is essential for hypothesis-driven research,
providing a framework for testing specific predictions about the relationships between
variables. In the context of CBT interventions for children, researchers may propose both null
and alternative hypotheses. The null hypothesis (H0) posits that there is no significant
difference in psychological outcomes between children who receive CBT interventions and
those who do not. Conversely, the alternative hypothesis (H1) suggests that children
receiving CBT will demonstrate improvements in their psychological well-being compared to
those not receiving CBT. These hypotheses are grounded in theoretical frameworks and
empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of CBT in treating psychological disorders in
children.
Variables: Types - IV, DV, Confounding, Extraneous, Mediator, Moderating:
Independent Variable (IV): Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) interventions represent the
focal point of manipulation in the study. CBT encompasses various therapeutic techniques
aimed at modifying dysfunctional thoughts, emotions, and behaviours in children. Examples
of CBT interventions may include cognitive restructuring, behavioural activation, exposure
therapy, and social skills training.
Dependent Variable (DV): The psychological well-being of children serves as the primary
outcome variable in the study. Psychological well-being encompasses multifaceted aspects of
mental health, including emotional regulation, social functioning, self-esteem, and overall
quality of life. Researchers may employ standardized measures, such as self-report
questionnaires, clinician-administered assessments, or behavioural observations, to assess
children's psychological well-being before and after receiving CBT interventions.
Confounding Variable: Confounding variables represent extraneous factors that may
systematically vary with the IV and influence the DV, thereby confounding the interpretation
of results. For example, concurrent medication use, family dynamics, or prior therapeutic
experiences may confound the relationship between CBT interventions and children's
psychological well-being. To mitigate confounding effects, researchers may employ various
strategies, such as randomization, statistical control, or stratification.
Extraneous Variable: Extraneous variables encompass factors not directly under investigation
but may impact the relationship between the IV and DV. These variables may include
demographic characteristics, environmental factors, or situational variables that could
potentially influence treatment outcomes. Researchers should carefully consider and account
for extraneous variables to ensure the internal and external validity of the study.
Mediator Variable: Mediator variables represent intermediate mechanisms through which the
IV exerts its effects on the DV. In the context of CBT interventions for children, mediator
variables may include changes in cognitive processes, coping strategies, or interpersonal
skills that mediate the relationship between therapeutic interventions and improvements in
psychological well-being. Mediation analysis allows researchers to test the significance and
magnitude of indirect effects, elucidating the underlying mechanisms of treatment efficacy.
Moderating Variable: Moderating variables influence the strength or direction of the
relationship between the IV and DV, thereby qualifying the conditions under which treatment
effects occur. Moderators may include demographic factors, clinical characteristics, or
contextual variables that interact with CBT interventions to determine treatment outcomes.
By identifying moderators, researchers can tailor interventions to specific subgroups of
children or elucidate factors that enhance or attenuate treatment efficacy.
Conditions/Levels of IV and Operationalization of Both Variables:
Conditions of IV: The experimental group receives CBT interventions delivered by trained
therapists, while the control group does not receive any CBT treatment, serving as a
comparison condition. By comparing outcomes between the experimental and control groups,
researchers can evaluate the unique effects of CBT interventions on children's psychological
well-being.
Test-retest reliability evaluates the stability of scale scores over time by administering the
scale to the same group of participants on two separate occasions and examining the degree
of agreement between their responses. Test-retest reliability coefficients, such as Pearson's
correlation coefficient or intraclass correlation coefficient, quantify the degree of consistency
or repeatability of measurement outcomes across different testing sessions. A high test-retest
reliability coefficient (>0.70) indicates that the scale produces consistent results over time,
supporting its reliability and reproducibility.
Validity of the Scale: Validity refers to the extent to which a scale measures what it intends to
measure, providing evidence for the accuracy and meaningfulness of measurement outcomes.
Various types of validity, such as content validity, criterion-related validity, and construct
validity, are assessed to establish the validity of Likert scale measures. Content validity
assesses the extent to which the scale items comprehensively cover the domain of interest,
ensuring that the scale adequately represents the constructs being measured. Content validity
is typically established through expert judgment, wherein subject matter experts evaluate the
relevance and representativeness of scale items relative to the intended construct. Criterion-
related validity examines the degree of association between scale scores and external criteria
or outcomes indicative of the construct being measured. Concurrent validity and predictive
validity are two common types of criterion-related validity, evaluating the extent to which
scale scores correlate with concurrent or future criterion measures, respectively. For example,
researchers may examine the correlation between Likert scale scores assessing depression
symptoms and clinical diagnoses of depression to establish concurrent validity. Construct
validity assesses the theoretical coherence and empirical relationships between the scale
items and other measures of related constructs, providing evidence for the underlying
construct validity of the scale.Convergent validity examines the degree of association
between the scale scores and other measures assessing similar constructs, demonstrating that
the scale converges with existing measures of the same construct. Discriminant validity
evaluates the degree of differentiation between the scale scores and measures assessing
unrelated constructs, ensuring that the scale captures unique aspects of the intended construct.
Sources of Error: Understanding and minimizing sources of error are essential to ensure the
integrity and reliability of measurement outcomes. Response bias represents a systematic
tendency for participants to respond in a certain way, biasing the measurement outcomes.
Common types of response bias include social desirability bias, where participants provide
socially desirable responses to conform to perceived norms or expectations, and acquiescence
bias, where participants agree with all items indiscriminately. Response bias may distort the
true relationships between variables and undermine the validity of measurement outcomes.
By minimizing response bias, researchers can enhance the accuracy and validity of Likert
scale measures, improving the reliability and interpretability of study findings. Situational
factors represent environmental or contextual influences that may affect participants'
responses during the measurement process. Situational factors, such as the presence of
peers,caregivers, or experimenters during assessment sessions, may influence participants'
comfort level, motivation, or willingness to disclose sensitive information, thereby biasing
measurement outcomes. Additionally, factors such as time of day, physical environment, or
mode of administration (e.g., online vs. in-person) may impact participants' responses and
introduce measurement error. Researchers should carefully consider and control for
situational factors to minimize their influence on measurement outcomes. Standardizing
assessment procedures, providing clear instructions, and creating a conducive and private
assessment environment can help reduce the impact of situational factors on participants'
responses. By minimizing sources of error, researchers can improve the reliability and
validity of Likert scale measures, enhancing the quality and credibility of study findings.
Influence of the Experimenter: The influence of the experimenter and participant observation
represents potential sources of bias that may impact the validity of study outcomes. Demand
characteristics refer to cues or expectations communicated by the experimenter or research
environment that may lead participants to modify their behaviour or responses to align with
perceived norms or expectations. Demand characteristics may arise from various sources,
such as verbal instructions, nonverbal cues, or the experimental context itself, and can
influence participants' behaviour, attitudes, or performance, thereby confounding the
interpretation of study results. To minimize demand characteristics, researchers can employ
various strategies, such as standardizing experimental procedures, providing minimal or
neutral instructions, and using deception or cover stories to mask the true purpose of the
study. Additionally, researchers can employ double-blind or single-blind designs, where
neither the participants nor the experimenters are aware of the experimental condition, to
reduce the potential for demand characteristics to influence study outcomes. The effects of
observation, often referred to as the Hawthorne effect, represent another potential source of
bias that may influence participants' behaviour or performance simply due to the awareness
of being observed or studied. The Hawthorne effect suggests that individuals may alter their
behaviour or productivity in response to being observed, leading to inflated or artificial
outcomes that do not reflect their typical behaviour or performance in naturalistic settings.
The Hawthorne effect may occur in various research contexts, such as laboratory
experiments, field studies, or clinical trials, and can impact the validity and generalizability of
study findings. Researchers can minimize the salience of observation or surveillance by using
covert observation techniques, employing unobtrusive measures, or providing participants
with assurances of privacy and confidentiality. Additionally, researchers can employ control
groups or comparison conditions to assess the magnitude of observation effects and
distinguish genuine treatment effects from responses to observation. By addressing the
influence of the experimenter and participant observation, researchers can enhance the
internal validity and credibility of study findings, ensuring that observed effects accurately
reflect the effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable.