Exploring Research Methods Quiz

Dr. Greenhill should conduct a qualitative study because he wants to understand the thoughts and perspectives of young teens regarding the connection between their personal lifestyle and environmental problems. A qualitative study would allow him to gather in-depth insights and explore the nuances of their experiences and beliefs. This approach would be more suitable for understanding the reasons behind why some adolescents become committed to environmentalism while others do not. Quantitative research, on the other hand, focuses on numerical data and statistical analysis, which may not provide the same level of depth and understanding in this context.

The correct answer is "to all persons under almost all conditions." This means that the requirement to keep information provided by research participants confidential applies to everyone, regardless of age or specific requests, in almost all situations. There may be some exceptional circumstances where confidentiality cannot be guaranteed, but generally, researchers are obligated to protect the privacy and confidentiality of all participants.

Yes, Dr. Davenport needs internal review board (IRB) approval for this study. Conducting research involving human participants, particularly students, requires ethical considerations and protection of their rights. IRB approval ensures that the study adheres to ethical guidelines, protects the participants' welfare, and maintains confidentiality. Even if the study is not accepted for publication, IRB approval is still necessary to ensure the ethical conduct of the research.

Dr. Davenport should conduct a quantitative study because she wants to examine the efficiency of learning in different seating arrangements among high school history students. A quantitative study involves the collection of numerical data and the use of statistical analysis to draw conclusions. This type of study would allow Dr. Davenport to measure and compare the learning outcomes of students seated at a desk versus in an easy chair, providing objective and measurable results. Additionally, a quantitative study would provide structure and help establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the seating arrangements and learning efficiency.

Charlotte's book is considered secondary data because it is based on her own experiences and observations as an anthropologist living in an Incan village. It is not firsthand or primary data, as it is not collected specifically for the purpose of Mira's research. Instead, Mira is using Charlotte's book as a source of information to supplement her own expertise in Navaho weaving.

The correct answer is "under no circumstances." This means that regardless of the situation, altering data is not allowed. It is important to maintain the integrity and accuracy of the data collected during research. Any errors or misunderstandings should be addressed through proper procedures such as clarifying questions or seeking additional information from the participant, rather than altering the data itself.

Replicability in high-quality research projects refers to the ability of another researcher to obtain comparable results by using the same procedures and conducting research under the same circumstances to investigate the same question. This means that the research methods and conditions are clearly defined and can be replicated by others, ensuring the reliability and validity of the findings. Replicability is crucial in scientific research as it allows for the verification and confirmation of results, enhancing the overall credibility and trustworthiness of the research.

Observing and imitating the master weavers in the Incan village is considered primary data for Charlotte because she is directly collecting information from her own observations and experiences. Primary data refers to data that is collected firsthand by the researcher for a specific research purpose, and in this case, Charlotte is gathering firsthand knowledge about Incan weaving through her direct observations and interactions with the master weavers.

Making participants fully aware of your expected findings is not a technique for strengthening the internal validity of a study. In fact, it can introduce bias and influence participants' responses, potentially compromising the validity of the study. Strengthening internal validity involves techniques such as conducting the study in a controlled laboratory setting, conducting a double-blind experiment to minimize bias, and building in opportunities for triangulation to enhance the reliability and validity of the findings.

When writing a report of original research, the sections should reflect the stages of the research process. This means that the report should be structured in a way that follows the logical progression of the research, starting with the introduction and background information, followed by the methodology, results, and conclusion. By organizing the report according to the stages of the research process, the reader can easily understand the flow of the study and how each section contributes to the overall findings.

The correct answer is "test-retest." Test-retest reliability refers to the consistency of scores obtained from the same measure when administered to the same group of individuals at two different points in time. In this scenario, the professor administers the survey in early April and then again in early May to assess the consistency of scores on civic-mindedness over time. By comparing the two sets of scores, the professor can determine the test-retest reliability of her measure of civic-mindedness among senior citizens.

The correct answer is "No data are gathered as part of this approach." This is because qualitative research methods involve gathering and analyzing textual data from a small number of participants in order to describe or explain a phenomenon. The study is also context-bound, meaning that it is focused on a specific context or setting. However, the statement that no data are gathered as part of this approach is incorrect, as data collection is a fundamental component of qualitative research methods.

The given scenario describes a situation where respondents consistently agree or disagree with all the questions in the test. This indicates that the test has good internal consistency reliability. Internal consistency reliability refers to the extent to which all items in a test measure the same construct and produce consistent results. In this case, the respondents' consistent agreement or disagreement with all the questions suggests that the test items are measuring the same construct of achievement motivation consistently.

Allowing flexibility in procedures and instruments does not strengthen the external validity of a study. External validity refers to the generalizability of the study findings to the larger population or real-world settings. Conducting the study in a real-life setting, assuring a representative sample, and replicating the study under a variety of relevant conditions are all techniques that enhance external validity. Allowing flexibility in procedures and instruments may introduce bias and decrease the ability to generalize the findings to other settings or populations.

The technique of excluding participants who have experiences or opinions that are very different from those of others in the study does not strengthen the credibility or dependability of a qualitative study. In fact, including diverse perspectives and experiences can enhance the richness and validity of the study findings.

A good research plan should include specific sampling plan, procedures, data sources, and analysis plan. This means that the researcher should have a clear plan in place for how they will select their sample, the procedures they will follow, the sources they will gather data from, and the methods they will use to analyze the data. This comprehensive approach ensures that the research is well-organized and can be replicated by others.

Universality in high-quality research projects refers to the ability for any competent researcher to carry out a well-designed research project, without relying on a specific individual. This means that the project is not dependent on the skills or expertise of a particular researcher, and can be replicated by others in the same field using the same procedures and circumstances. This ensures that the results obtained are comparable and can be verified by different researchers, increasing the reliability and validity of the research findings.

The statement "Data reveal truth" does not necessarily characterize data because data can be manipulated or misrepresented to support a certain narrative or agenda. While data can provide valuable insights and evidence, it is important to critically analyze and interpret the data to ensure its accuracy and reliability. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that all data will reveal the truth without proper scrutiny.

The scenario describes Dick and Jane watching the same video and independently rating the level of aggression displayed by each child. The fact that they compare their ratings and find them to be highly similar indicates that they have achieved interrater reliability. Interrater reliability refers to the consistency or agreement between different raters or observers when assessing the same phenomenon. In this case, the high similarity in their ratings suggests that they are reliable in their assessment of aggression among preschool children.

The correct answer is "pose the question, pose a hypothesis, search the literature, collect the data." This sequence is commonly followed in the quantitative research process. First, the researcher formulates a question that they want to investigate. Then, they develop a hypothesis, which is a tentative explanation for the question. Next, they conduct a thorough literature review to gather existing knowledge and research on the topic. Finally, they collect the necessary data through various methods such as surveys, experiments, or observations. This sequence ensures that the research process is systematic and logical.

Sean's confusion indicates a lack of face validity regarding the task. Face validity refers to the extent to which a task or measure appears to assess what it is intended to assess. In this case, the questionnaire about commonly purchased grocery items does not appear to be related to cardiovascular conditioning, which is the focus of the study. Sean's confusion suggests that he does not see the relevance or connection between the questionnaire and the study, indicating a lack of face validity.

Physical measurements should be expressed in metric units because the metric system is a standardized system of measurement used worldwide. It provides a consistent and uniform way of expressing measurements, making it easier for scientists, engineers, and researchers to communicate and compare data. Metric units are based on powers of 10, which makes conversions between different units simple and straightforward. Additionally, most scientific journals and publications require measurements to be reported in metric units. Using traditional nonmetric units or units of the original measurement can lead to confusion, inconsistency, and difficulties in understanding and interpreting data.

The researcher's use of a well-established measure of interpersonal sensitivity as a comparison for her new measure of empathy suggests that she is interested in determining whether her new instrument accurately measures what it intends to measure. Criterion validity refers to the extent to which a measure is able to predict or correlate with a specific criterion or outcome. In this case, the researcher is testing the relationship between her new measure of empathy and the well-established measure of interpersonal sensitivity, which suggests that she is examining whether her new instrument accurately predicts or correlates with the criterion of interpersonal sensitivity. Therefore, the finding that the two instruments are highly related supports the criterion validity of the new instrument.

The researcher's new questionnaire is shown to have criterion validity because it is able to accurately measure the degree of political conservatism. The results of the questionnaire align with the self-identification of the participants, indicating that the questionnaire is measuring what it is intended to measure. Criterion validity is concerned with how well a measurement tool correlates with an external criterion, in this case, the self-identification of political conservatism.

Quantitative research methods involve the use of statistical analyses to gather and interpret data. The purpose of quantitative research is to explain or predict phenomena, and it is assumed that the findings will generalize to similar others. However, deductive reasoning is not typically applied to data analysis and interpretation in quantitative research. Deductive reasoning involves drawing specific conclusions from general principles or theories, whereas quantitative research typically involves inductive reasoning, where specific observations are used to develop general principles or theories.