After reading your colleagues null and research hypotheses, do you feel that these accurately respond to the scenario? Please provide a rationale for your agreement or disagreement. Evaluate your colleagues proposed research design and explain whether or not you agree with the research design chosen providing a brief rationale for your opinion citing the resources as necessary. What potential threats to internal validity do you see that your colleague has not identified? Consider the ethical implications your colleague has described and identify any other potential threats to external validity your colleague has not mentioned. Recommend potential solutions to the areas of both internal and external validity in the research design proposed by your colleague.
1st Response Mitchell
Apply the scientific method to the information included within the scenario and develop a null and a research hypothesis based on it.
The null hypothesis in the information within the scenario, Experimental intervention will not improve student motivation when participating in discussions. The research hypothesis in the information with the scenario, Experimental intervention will improve student motivation when participating in discussions.
Using the hypotheses you have developed, compare the characteristics of the different experimental research designs discussed in the Skidmore (2008) article and choose the one that is most appropriate to adequately test your hypotheses
The characteristics of the different experimental research designs discussed in the Skidmore (2008) article include 2 groups of participants one group recieved treatment/intervention and the other group did not this group was controlled. The one that is most appropriate to adequately test my hypotheses is Pretest-Posttest Control-Group Design because the participants were randomly assigned to either experimental or controlled group to test my theory.
Identify potential internal threats to validity and explain how you might mitigate these threats. Apply ethical principles to the proposed research and describe the implications of this type of research in terms of the population(s) and cultural consideration(s) represented in the sample(s) within the scenario.
The potential internal threats would be causing potiential harm. Some participants/students may have issues with participanting because on daily life activities such as work, school, home life, and unforeseen issues. I would explain as a researcher that these things happen and I am aware of that as long as some participation is happening then they should be fine. The ethical principles to the proposed research is obtaining consent first, strive to benefit those whom I am working with, establishing professional relationships of trust and scientific responsibilities, do no harm, and promoting accuracy, honesty, and truthfulness in science. The population seems to be students from all cultural consideration(s) were represented in the sample within the scenario.
Murphy, P. (2014). PSY635 Week two discussion scenario [PDF]. Ashford University: San Diego, CA Skidmore, S. (2008). Experimental design and some threats to experimental validity: A primer. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, February 6, 2008). Retrieved from http://sera-edresearch.org
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: Including 2010 amendments. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
2nd Response Kinney
After reading the required articles and reviewing the PSY635 Week Two Discussion Scenario I could come up with my hypothesis. As for my research hypothesis for this experiment is that the independent variable will impact the dependent variable in a positive way showing more number of responses per students than before with an incentive of changing the instructions for the guided responses. My null hypothesis for this experiment is that the independent variable will have no positive or negative affect on the dependent variable (number of responses).
In the Skidmore (2008) article there was three different experimental designs. Although all three shared some similarities they also had some different characteristics. The first design is called Pretest-Posttest Control-Group Design, the second design is called Posttest-Only Control Group Design, and the third design group is called Solomon Four-Group Design. The first two groups both have similar characteristics such as random assignment, intervention implemented with experimental group only, and post-intervention measurement. The difference between these two is that the second design controls for possible confounding effects of a pretest because it does not use a pre-intervention measurement. The third design is said to be the strongest of all as it corrects for the possible confounding effects of a pretest, but it also allows you to compare these results to an experimental group and control group that did receive a pretest. The sample size in this design is also different as it has 2 control groups and 2 experimental groups making the sample size needing to meet four treatment groups. The group that is most appropriate to test my hypothesis is the first design called Pretest-Posttest Control-Group Design. The reason for this choice is because the intervention is only given to one group and there is some form of post-intervention measurement.
Internal threats and validity could be selection bias meaning that the random selection was not at random. Another internal threat is history. With my hypothesis this history can be a threat because is it happens to be a holiday week when the experiment is taking place then it could reduce the motivation that students have to respond to others posts. Maturation could also be a threat as when people age they are less motivated to respond in such length. Experimental mortality or attrition is another internal threat because participants in a research study are there at will and they can back out whenever they feel so. If we lose a whole group, the experiment is questionable.
An ethical issue that I see here is that with the incentive used it is almost as if we are bribing a participant to respond to the post. It could also be a little bias that a researcher would think that a participant would comply with the experiment knowing they are getting something in reward for it.
Skidmore, S. (2008). Experimental design and some threats to experimental validity: A primer. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, February 6, 2008). Retrieved from http://sera-edresearch.org/