Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
143 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Idiographic
|
Understanding individual as unique, complex entity (Ponterotto, 2005)
|
|
Nomothetic
|
Uncovering general patterns of behavior that have a normative base (Ponterotto, 2005)
|
|
Etic
|
Universal laws and behaviors that apply to all humans (Ponterotto, 2005)
|
|
Emic
|
Constructs/behaviors unique to an individual, sociocultural context (Ponterotto, 2005)
|
|
4 philosophical approaches
|
Positivism, postpositivism, constructivism-interpretivism, critical-ideological
|
|
Meaning is hidden, must be brought to surface through deep reflection
|
Hermeneutical approach (Ponterotto, 2005)
|
|
Counterbalanced design
|
Enter all subjects into all treatment conditions at some point (one group gets treatment A then treatment B, the other group gets the reverse), and observe before and after each treatment (Campbell & Stanley, 1963)
|
|
Nonequivalent control group design
|
Two groups, both get pre and post-test, one doesn’t get treatment (Campbell & Stanley, 1963)
|
|
Equivalent time-samples design
|
Observations paired with treatment implementation several times (Campbell & Stanley, 1963)
|
|
Simple interrupted time series-
|
Many observations before and after treatment is implemented (100 observations recommended)
|
|
Regression discontinuity designs
|
Control assignment of participants to two or more treatment conditions with a posttest based on cutoff score on assignment variable, compare between the regression lines. The posttest lines should have the same slope and intercept unless a treatment effect is seen. (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Translational research
|
Research that links clinical intervention with basic science (Strauman & Merrill, 2004)
|
|
Culture
|
Highly variable systems of meaning which are learned and shared by a people, designs and ways of life that are normally transmitted from one generation to another. (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993)
|
|
Race
|
Generally physical and biological features. High within-group variance. (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993)
|
|
Ethnicity
|
Groups characterized by common nationality, culture, or language (Betancourt & Lopez, 1993)
|
|
Translation equivalence
|
multi-step process in which translation is followed by back translation, comparison of two versions, revision of translation and so forth (Okazaki & Sue, 1995)
|
|
Conceptual equivalence
|
whether the psychological construct under investigation holds the same meanings in two or more cultural groups (Okazaki & Sue, 1995)
|
|
Metric equivalence
|
assumption that the same metric can be used to measure the same concept in two or more cultures (Okazaki & Sue, 1995)
|
|
3 feminist epistemologies
|
Feminist empiricism, feminist standpoint theory, feminist postmodernists (Campbell & Wasco, 2000)
|
|
Trustworthiness criteria
|
Credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmabiity (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)
|
|
Authenticity criteria (5)
|
Fairness, ontological authenticity, educative authenticity, catalytic authenticity, tactical authenticity (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)
|
|
Core tenents of pragmatism
|
Lines of action, warranted assertions, workability (Morgan, 2007)
|
|
validity is not a property of methods- it is
|
it is a property of the inferences drawn from methods (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Type II errors
|
False negatives—concluding that there is no effect when there really is an effect
|
|
Type I errors
|
- False positives—concluding that there is an effect, when one really doesn’t exist
|
|
2 types of structure of constructs
|
Latent and manifest (Ruscio & Ruscio, 2004)
|
|
Hypothetical constructs
|
Hypotheses of unobserved entities or processes. We make inferences about hypothetical constructs (Kozak & Miller, 1982)
|
|
Intervening variables
|
Methodologically rigorous concepts that contain no information beyond their data, lack predictive and explanatory power when applied to new situations (i.e., situations not included in the study) (Kozak & Miller, 1982)
|
|
Basic requirements for all causal relationships
|
1) cause precedes effect, 2) cause covaries with effect, ) alternative explanations are implausible (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
empirically supported treatment
|
interventions or techniques that have produced therapeutic change in controlled trials (Kazdin, 2008)
|
|
evidence-based practice
|
clinical practice that is informed about interventions, clinical expertise, and patient needs, values, and preferences (Kazdin, 2008)
|
|
Efficacy Studies
|
Well-controlled treatment studies (such as RCTs) that aim to establish a causal relationship and demonstrate that a treatment works (Kazdin, 2008)
|
|
Effectiveness Studies
|
Studies of therapy performed in the “real world” (settings in which they will be applied) (Kazdin, 2008)
|
|
cutural competence
|
synthesis and application of previously gained cultural awareness, cultural knowledge and cultural sensitivity (Papadopoulos, 2002)
|
|
Sobel test
|
Multiply the effect of IV on mediator to effect of mediator on DV, then divide by estimated standard error. Compare this value to standard normal distribution. (Sobel, 1982)
|
|
causal steps
|
Estimate these regression equations, looking for significant relationships: 1 – mediator on independent variable, 2 – regress dependent variable on independent variable, 3 – regress dependent variable on both independent variable and mediator (Baron & Kenny, 1986)
|
|
Mediator
|
Mechanism through which IV affects DV. HOW or WHY effects occur. (Baron & Kenny, 1986)
|
|
Moderator
|
Affects strength/direction of relationship between IV and DV. Causal relationship between IV and DV changes as function of moderator (e.g., gender). Speak to WHEN effects hold. (Baron & Kenny, 1986)
|
|
Look for moderation when
|
there’s a weak relationship between IV and DV
|
|
Look for mediation when
|
There's a strong relationship between IV and DV
|
|
4 methods of evaluating clinical significance
|
comparison method, no longer meeting diagnostic criteria, subjective evaluation, social impact measures
|
|
Bayesian estimation
|
Takes into account the prior probabilities of the possible hypotheses, combines them with the available evidence, and yields the probability of the given claim being correct (Frick, 1996)
|
|
Confidence intervals
|
Assess the probability that a parameter lies within a particular range of values (Frick, 1996). It allows the researcher to estimate the degree to which (i.e., probability) the observed value (or difference) is likely to be the true value
|
|
Effect size
|
Indicates how much variation in the operationalization of the independent variable(s) is accounted for by the dependent variable(s).
|
|
5 criticisms of NHST
|
impossible to have equal means, arbitrary, affected by sample size, often misinterpreted, can't assert the null (Cohen, 1994)
|
|
p value
|
The probability of achieving the observed outcome or larger, given the null hypothesis (Frick, 1996)
|
|
4 alternatives to ANCOVA
|
Incorporate covariate as IV, propensity score, meta analysis, placement of group means on regression line
|
|
T-test
|
Looks at the difference in means of a continuous variable between two groups
|
|
Regression
|
Statistical model that you use to predict a continuous outcome on the basis of one or more continuous predictor variables
|
|
ANOVA
|
Statistical model that you use to predict a continuous outcome on the basis of one or more categorical predictor variables
|
|
Correlation
|
Looks at the linear relationship between two continuous variables
|
|
Chi-square
|
Looks at the difference between two categorical variables or goodness-of-fit for one qualitative variable
|
|
three types of case study strategies
|
within-series, between-series, combined-series
|
|
3 classic nonreactive methods
|
physical traces, archival data, simple observations (Eid & Diener, 2005)
|
|
most important criterion of nonreactivity
|
non-awareness of the subjects participating in the research (Webb et al.)
|
|
Regression Discontinuity Designs
|
Participant (units) are assigned to a group (conditions) based on whether or not they meet a predetermined cutoff score (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Simple interrupted time series
|
many observations before and after treatment is implemented (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Sequential observation
|
application of predefined coding schemes to sequences of live or recorded behavior (or transcripts of behavior) based on rules and with attention to observer reliability (Bakeman & Gnisci, 2005)
|
|
Experience Sampling Method
|
collect info in the moment following an electronically administered signal. [DeVries (1992)]
|
|
6 factors that affect recall judgment
|
recency, peak, effort, summary, immediate context, person factors (Stone & Lichter-Kelly, 2005)
|
|
reliability
|
degree to which test scores are free from errors of measurement." (APA,1985)
|
|
Ecological validity
|
Extent to which environment experienced by subjects has properties it is supposed or assumed to have by researcher (Bronfenbrenner, 1979)
|
|
Predictive validity
|
Used for the purpose of forecasting
|
|
Criterion validity
|
A measure achieves criterion validity to the extent that it corresponds to an accurate criterion of interest. Can the tester measure serve as a stand in for the measure we are really interested in. (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Divergent validity
|
evidence that a test measures something different from other tests. Evidence that we are measuring a unique construct. (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Concurrent validity
|
Predicting how well the person will do right away. (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Convergent validity
|
measures of the same construct converge. (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Content Related Validity
|
extent to which a measure provides an adequate representation of the conceptual domain it is designed to cover. (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Face validity
|
mere appearance that a measure has validity (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Statistical conclusions validity
|
(Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002): Statistical conclusion validity concerns 2 related statistical inferences that affect the covariation component of causal inferences: 1) whether the presumed causes and effect covary and 2) how strongly they covary
|
|
Twin problems of construct validity
|
Understanding Constructs, Assessment of Sampling Particulars (Shadish, Cook & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
External validity concerns
|
inferences about the extent to which a causal relationship holds over variations in persons, settings, treatments, and outcomes (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Statistical regression (to the mean)
|
When units are selected for their extreme scores, they will often have less extreme scores on other variables, an occurrence that can be confused with a treatment (treatment) effect (Campbell & Stanley, 1963)
|
|
Internal validity
|
validity of inference about whether the observed covariation between A (presumed treatment) and B (presumed outcome) reflects a causal relationship from A to B as those variables were manipulated or measured. (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
methodology vs. methods
|
Methodology is the philosophical framework and fundamental assumptions; methods are the techniques of data collection and analysis (Creswell, 2006)
|
|
Nature of reality and being
|
ontology (Ponterotto, 2002)
|
|
Study of knowledge, acquisition of knowledge, relationship between participant and researcher
|
epistemology (Ponterotto, 2002)
|
|
Role and place of values in the research process
|
axiology (Ponterotto, 2002)
|
|
ontology
|
Nature of reality and being (Ponterotto, 2002)
|
|
epistemology
|
Study of knowledge, acquisition of knowledge, relationship between participant and researcher (Ponterotto, 2002)
|
|
axiology
|
Role and place of values in the research process (Ponterotto, 2002)
|
|
Solomon four-group design
|
Assigned randomly to one of four groups. Two get treatment, two do not. One of each of these groups gets a pretest and one does not. (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Independent pretest sample
|
A group that is drawn randomly from the same population as the posttest sample but that may have overlapping membership. This group is used when it is impossible or not desirable to pretest data on the same sample both before and after treatment. (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002
|
|
Proxy pretests
|
Measure variables that are conceptually related to and correlated with the posttest within treatments. (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Regression extrapolation
|
Type of contrast- Compares actual and projected posttest scores (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Normed comparison
|
Type of contrast- Compares treatment recipients to normed samples (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Secondary data
|
Type of contrast- Compares treatment recipients to samples drawn from previously gathered data, such as case records or population based surveys. (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Stratifying
|
Occurs when units are placed into homogeneous sets that contain more units than the experiment has conditions. (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
3 threats to validity addressed by pretest
|
Instrumentation, regression, history (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
3 ways to improve the untreated control group design with dependent pretest and posttest samples (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
Double pretest, switching replications, reversed-treatment control group (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
2 types of attrition
|
Measurement and treatment (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
2 analyses taking implementation into account
|
Intent to treat analysis, amount of treatment actually received analysis (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Intent-to-treat analysis
|
Participants are analyzed as if they received the treatment to which they were assigned (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Amount of treatment actually received analysis
|
Compares outcomes of those who received treatments in comparison to those who did not (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
3 types of correlational designs
|
Retrospective, cross-sectional, ex-post facto (Campbell & Stanley, 1963)
|
|
3 aspects of ethnicity that may account for its psycholoogical importance
|
culture, identity, minority status (Phinney, 1996)
|
|
The process of feminist research is characterized by four primary features
|
Quant + qual, connecting women for group-level data collection, reducing hierarchical relationship, recognizing/reflecting on emotionality of women's lives (Campbell & Wasco, 2000)
|
|
Feminist standpoint theory
|
claims that class, race, gender, and sexual orientation structure a person’s understanding of reality. Feminist standpoint research utilizes a variety of methodologies (e.g., both qualitative and quantitative approaches) to engage research participants (typically members of oppressed groups) in reflection on how their gender, race, social class, and sexual orientation shape their experiences in the social world (Campbell & Wasco, 2000)
|
|
Feminist postmodernists
|
reject the notion that there is a single truth or reality, in any form. They question whether there can ever be a feminist science, and instead view the world as endless stories or texts, many of which serve to sustain the status quo of power and oppression. (Campbell & Wasco, 2000)
|
|
5 criteria for saying "X is a gene for Y"
|
Strength of association, specificity of relationship, noncontingency of effect, causal proximity of X to Y, degree to which is appropriate level of explanation for Y (Kendler, 2005)
|
|
If MZ > DZ
|
strong evidence that there’s a role for genes (Gottesman, 1991)
|
|
Credibility
|
Matching constructed realities of respondents to the realities represented by the evaluator. Paralleled to internal validity (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)
|
|
Negative case analysis
|
Revising working hypotheses in the light of new information (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)
|
|
Progressive Subjectivity
|
The researcher should check themselves often to ensure that they are not privileging their own ideas at the expensive of what is actually in the data. (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)
|
|
Member Checks
|
Bring participants together and present findings to see how these resonate with their experience (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)
|
|
Transferability
|
How well findings transfer across context. Parallel to external validity. Differs in that the burden of proof for claimed transferability is on the receiver (opposed to on the researcher, as in positivist framework) (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)
|
|
Dependability
|
Stability of data over time. Parallel to reliability (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)
|
|
Confirmability
|
Findings are rooted in contexts and persons other than the evaluator. Parallel to objectivity. This is not about the method, as objectivity is, but rather about the findings (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)
|
|
Fairness
|
"the extent to which different constructions and their underlying value structures are solicited and honored within the evaluation process." (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)
|
|
Ontological authenticity
|
the extent to which individual respondents' own emic constructions are improved, matured, expanded, and elaborated (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)
|
|
Educative authenticity
|
the extent to which individual respondents’ understanding of and appreciation for the constructions of others outside their stakeholding group are enhanced. (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)
|
|
Catalytic authenticity
|
the extent to which action is stimulated and facilitated by the evaluation processes (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)
|
|
Tactical authenticity
|
the degree to which stakeholders and participants are empowered to act. (Guba & Lincoln, 1989)
|
|
lines of action
|
actual behavior (Morgan, 2007)
|
|
warranted assertions
|
Beliefs behind behaviors (Morgan, 2007)
|
|
workability
|
the consequences that are likely to follow from different behaviors (Morgan, 2007)
|
|
Mental model
|
constellation of assumptions, theoretical commitments, experiences, and values through which a social inquirer conducts his/her research/work (Greene, 2007)
|
|
2 mixed methods approaches
|
Concurrent, sequential (Creswell & Clark, 2007)
|
|
Convergence (MM design)
|
Using two or more methods to measure the same phenomena, where the sequence of implementation is concurrent, with a purpose of triangulation (Greene, 2007)
|
|
Extension (MM design)
|
Using two or more methods to measure different phenomena, where the sequence of implementation is variable, with a purpose of expansion (Greene, 2007)
|
|
Iteration (MM design)
|
Sequential implementation of two or more methods, each given equal weight, for the purpose of development (Greene, 2007)
|
|
Blending (MM design)
|
Concurrent implementation of two or more methods, each given equal weight, for the purpose of complementarity or initiation (Greene, 2007)
|
|
Nesting (MM design)
|
Concurrent implementation of two or more methods, where one is given primary status, for the purposes of complementarity or initiation (Greene, 2007)
|
|
Substantive (MM design)
|
Sequential or concurrent implementation of two or more methods, each given equal weight, for a variety of purposes (Greene, 2007)
|
|
Triangulation (MM purpose)
|
Convergence, corroboration, correspondence of results from different methods (Greene et al., 1989)
|
|
Complementarity (MM purpose)
|
Elaboration, enhancement, illustration of the results from one method with the results of another method (Greene et al., 1989)
|
|
Development (MM purpose)
|
Uses results from one method to help develop or inform the other method (Greene et al., 1989)
|
|
Initiation (MM purpose)
|
Questions or results from one method are recast based on questions or results from the other method, toward the goal of paradox (Greene et al., 1989)
|
|
Expansion (MM purpose)
|
Different methods used for different inquiry components toward extending breadth or range of inquiry(Greene et al., 1989)
|
|
Purist (MM paradigm)
|
Paradigms incommensurable and cannot be mixed (Greene, 2008)
|
|
A-paradigmatic (MM paradigm)
|
Practical considerations should guide the nature of mixing (Greene, 2008)
|
|
Substantive theory (MM paradigm)
|
Concepts and theories from research area should guide approach (Greene, 2008)
|
|
Complementary strengths (MM paradigm)
|
Use multiple paradigms in one study, but keep them separate (Greene, 2008)
|
|
Dialectic (MM paradigm)
|
Use multiple paradigms in one study, and juxtapose them intentionally (Greene, 2008)
|
|
Statistical conclusion validity
|
Appropriate use of statistics to infer whether the presumed independent and dependent variables covary (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Internal validity
|
Did the covariation result from a causal relationship (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Construct validity
|
The validity of inferences about the higher order constructs that represent sampling particulars (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Interaction of the causal relationship with units
|
An effect found with certain kinds of units might not hold if other kinds of units had been studied (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Interaction of the causal relationship over treatment variations
|
An effect found with one treatment variation might not hold with other variations of that treatment, or when that treatment is combined with other treatments, or when only part of that treatment is used (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Interaction of the causal relationship with outcomes
|
An effect found on one kind of outcome observation may not hold if other outcome observations were used (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Interactions of the causal relationship with settings
|
An effect found in one kind of setting may not hold if other kinds of settings were to be used (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
Context dependent mediation
|
An explanatory mediator of a causal relationship in one context may not mediate in another context (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|
|
3 ways to improve the untreated control group design with dependent pretest and posttest samples
|
Double pretest, switching replications, reversed-treatment control group (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002)
|