Validity

Control Group:

          Able to better assess whether changes in the dependent variable were as result of the independent variable.

Standardise Procedure:

          Minimise the impact of investigator effects and participant reactivity

(Single/Double)-Blind:

         Reduce the effects of demand characteristics

         Reduce investigator effects

Incorporate a lie scale within the questions to assess their consistency in their responses. 

Assuring the individual that their answers will remain anonymous will also reduce the effects of social desirability bias. 

High ecological validity as there may be minimalreseracher intervention. 

            Further highlighted if the researcher ensures a covert observation resulting in more natural and authentic behaviour.

Broad, overlapping and/or ambiguous behavioural categories will make it harder to replicate the procedure to increase validity.

Better reflects the participant's reality in case studies and interviews for example, due to in-depth and detailed results. 

Interpretative validity is increased through direct participant quotes.

Validity increases through triangulation 

                                     Using more than one source as evidence, e.g. through interviews with friends and family, personal diaries, observations etc.

Concerns the issue of whether the self-report measure looks as if it looks as if it is measuring what it is suppost to. 

Comparing the current method with a previously validated one of the same topic.

You would expect on both measurements, to receive similar scores to confirm the validity of the current method. 

1. Investigator effects

    Not measuring what you are suppost to

2. Demand Characteristics

   Changing behaviour to what would be expected

3. Confounding variables

    Make is harder to see effects due to variations 

4. Social Desirability Bias

   Changing behaviour to fit in

5. Poorly Operationalised Behavioural Categories 

   Hard to measure ambiguous behaviours