evaluating reliability

main thing to say when refuring to reliablity?
replicablity, whether when retested the results will be consistant
1 of 16
method of investigation- lab?
lab= controlled enviroment= high relablity, because controllled for extraneous variables however this could result in expermimenter bias or demand charactstics - unreliable
2 of 16
method of investiagtion- feild?
participants natural enviroment- lacks control= confounding variables, experiance for participants may differ= cannot control so there will be counfounding variables
3 of 16
method of investigation- quasi?
high reliablity, p grouped in naturally occuring variable, less experimenter bias- results more consistant - less reliable - differences between the groups, pre existing individual differences confound results.
4 of 16
sampling method- oppotunity?
low reliablity- p easily avaliable, age, gender, socio-economic, educational level bias- inconsistant
5 of 16
sampling method- random?
high reliablity- exp did not decide who would take part, less expermenter effects, results from study should be replicable because not confounded by expermenter effects.
6 of 16
sampling method- volunteer?
low in reliablity, exp used p who has intrest in research, results not replicable because counfounded by demand charactristics.
7 of 16
what types of data- quantitative?
higher in relablity, because can be analysed and compared with results from replications.
8 of 16
what types of data- qualitative?
low relablity, because can be effected by expermenter bias when it is analysed
9 of 16
how did they collect data- self report?
lacks reliablity, expermenter and participant effects, meaning could be effected by social desirability bias, demand characteristics/ experimenter effects (leading questions, cues) or individual differences.
10 of 16
how did they collect data- interviews?
interviewer’s reaction to participant’s responses can affect the answers they give (INTERVIEWER EFFECTS) OR they may be worried about revealing any socially sensitive information in front of an interviewer who they feel might judge them
11 of 16
how did they collect data- questionaire?
question wording reval invesitagtion- demand charactristics, nothing socially senstive said embarressed social desirbaility bias- anamoysity of questions good beacuse p will talk thinking theres no reprcussions
12 of 16
how did they collect data- rating scale?
participant’s answers could be effected by the way in which they interpret the scale which may be different to the experimenter’s and other participants’ interpretations (INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES).
13 of 16
how did they collect data- observation overt or p obs?
This method of collecting data lacks reliability because it is vulnerable to experimenter and participant effects which can bias the responses. This is vulnerable to SDB, observer effects and DC
14 of 16
how did they collect data- observation covert natralistic?
high- reliability- participants behave normally- means that p behaviour not affected by demand characteristics or presence of participant observer. it may lack internal reliability because it cannot control for extraneous variables- not controlled e
15 of 16
physiological measures
blood, brain scans, saliva, sweating, breathing rate, heart rate, high reliability no exp/p bias data not cause DC and SDB but the interpritation= exp bia as may not be consistant been different experimenters
16 of 16

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

method of investigation- lab?

Back

lab= controlled enviroment= high relablity, because controllled for extraneous variables however this could result in expermimenter bias or demand charactstics - unreliable

Card 3

Front

method of investiagtion- feild?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

method of investigation- quasi?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

sampling method- oppotunity?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all reliability resources »