NOTES:

TYPES OF SCALES:

1) Likert Scale2) Fixed choice questions3) Verbal rating scale4) Visual analogue scale5) Box scale 6) Nominal scale7) Ordinal scale8) Interval scales

Patient-practitioner relationship

Reliability

McKinstry and Wang (1991)- 8 pictures, same pose Savage and Armstrong (1990)- Test-retest reliability, low reliability- less controlled, field exp Ley (1988) Low test-retest reliability Meta analysis- lack of controls Case studies

Validity

EXTERNAL VALIDITY

McKinstry and Wang Pop validity and Cultural relativism- Edinburg, formal dressing, one area- Lothian Ecological validity- not real people/pictures, in real life other things could confound this result McKinlay (1975)-Pop v and CR- Women, UK, uneducated McKinlay (1975)- Real setting Ley (1988)- Ecologically valid - used real patients who have been to see real doctors for real

illness P.v- Study done in a particular country, Liverpool Bryne and Long (1976)- E.V-unaware of being observed/ covert observation P.V- Population validity and generalizability, only western Savage and Armstrong (1990)- E.V- real patients, real situations- spontaneous speech- flipped

the card when patients came – double blind technique P.V- inner city, London but 200 Robinson and West (1992)- P.V- diff studies, multiple samples, low cultural relativism E.V- based on real patients visiting the clinics Safer (1979)- P.V- 4 diff clinic, 60 % black, but 93 patients, low number, Large inner city hospital

in the States

E.V- real symptoms, just came to the hospital Case studies-P.V Cross-cultural study – shows that condition also exists in Saudi Arabia & not just Western

European cultures, High in E.v

INTERNAL VALIDITY

McKinstry and Wang (1991)- Woman doctor in suit, rating scales- demand characteristics, new research done on this matter proves validity

McKinlay (1975)- pregnant women, may forget Ley (1988) -confounding variable- Individual differences, recall, however diff samples avoids

demand characteristics SELF REPORT- No exp bias, ethics but social desirability affecting validity Bryne and Long (1976)- no demand characteristics, meta analysis Savage and Armstrong (1990)- both didn’t know, ensures objectivity, less bias Confounding variable- Type of disease but recall Self report, exp bias- social desirability S.A and Robinson and West (1992)- High in criterion validity, free from bias Safer (1979)- Self reports-interviewer bias, social desirability Case studies- more indepth data BUT limited research

Generalization (Refer to external validity)

McKinstry and Wang (1991) 475 people, 5 diff practices Lothian Ley (1988)- sample 2, diff age groups Study done in a particular country, Liverpool Bryne and Long (1976) but only western Savage and Armstrong (1990) inner city, London but 200 Robinson and West (1992)- P.V- diff studies, multiple samples, low cultural relativism Safer (1979)- P.V- 4 diff clinic, 60 % black but 93 patients, low number, Large inner city hospital

in the states Case studies Cross-cultural study – shows that condition also exists in Saudi Arabia & not just Western

European cultures

Red/ Holism

McKinstry and Wang (1991)- Snapshot, one factor, pop validity, mostly quan McKinlay (1975)- Snapshot, one factor, pop validity, mostly quan Ley (1988)- Pop v Bryne and long (1976)- P.V but only western, Robinson and West (1992) Safer (1979)- P.V, mostly qual data, snapshot Case studies

Snapshot/Longitudinal:

McKinstry and Wang (1991)-S McKinlay (1975)-S Ley (1988)- Longitudinal Safer (1979)- 45 mins interview- S Case studies- L

Usefulness

Mckinstry and Wang (1991)- importance of first impression , ecological v McKinlay (1975)- avoid jargon, old study Ley (1988)- led to development of a manual for doctors to use to communicate with patients,

confounding variables Case studies- help throw light on a rare condition so that they don’t waste time of practitioners,

generalizability

Qual/Quan

McKinstry and Wang (1991)-QUAN McKinlay (1975)-Quan Ley (1988)- Quan Byrne and Long (1976)- videos- qual, mostly observation Savage and Armstrong (1990)- QUAN Safer (1979)- interviews, QUAL Case studies- QUAL/ observations

Observation/self-reports/Case studies

McKinstry and Wang- SELF REPORT/ LAB McKinlay- SELF REPORT/LAB Ley (SELF REPORT) Byrne and Long- OBSERVATION/META ANALYSIS Savage and Armstrong- SELF REPORT/FIELD Robinson and West- META ANALYSIS Safer- SELF REPORT/LAB Barlow and Durand, Aleem and Ajarin- CASE STUDY/OBSERVATION-more qual data and detail,

progress/ development over time- longitudinal, low generalizability and exp bias

Ethics:

Bryne and Long (1976)- confidentiality Savage and Armstrong (1990)- Took consent Aleem and Ajarin (1995)- Ethical issues – nurses searched the bed, was informed by another

patient, lost to follow-up

Adherence to medical advice

Reliability

Chung and Naya(2000), pill and bottle count, repeat prescriptions, biochemical tests Test-re test reliability-Ley (1988)

Validity

INTERNAL

Bulpitt (1988)- Higher criterion validity Johnson and Bytheway (2000)- interviews, dairies and observation- concurrent validity Self reports- D.C AND S.D Bias in T.O and P.E Pill and bottle count- dumping, Trackcap (Chung and Naya, 2000)- fidgety-C.V, biochemical tests

can be faked- not adherence range Sherman et al (2000)- concurrent validity, validity- 90 % accurate but C.V Burke et al (1997)- Validity- based on operant conditioning and research Bob Lewin (1992)- Validity- increase in adherence rates, Concurrent validity Ley (1988) -Validity- backed by research, low d.c, C.V

EXTERNAL/ Generalizability /

Bulpitt (1988)- meta analysis male, only hypertension(other patients may not have such severe side effects)/ long term/short

term- diabetes/ asthama, age restrictions Johnson and Bythway (2000)- Generalization- location, own their house, 12 month medication,

77 is low,UK Chung and Naya (2000)- C.R, expensive Sherman (2000)- Generalizability- US, children, asthama but 100 Ley (1988), Bob Lewin (1992)- E.V PV- Liverpool

Red/Holism

Bulpitt (1988)- P.V, only rational non adherence / meta analysis Johnson and Bytheway (2000)- interviews, dairies and observation and QUAL/QUAN Generalization/PV Chung and Naya (2000)- Asthama (Short term impact), Quan data- reductionist ,Specific

adhering method- track cap Ley (1988)- Reductionist-focuses only on communication

Snapshot/Longitudinal ( Adherence)

Johnson and Bytheway (2000)- 2 weeks –L Chung and Naya (2000)- 12 weeks-L Bob Lewin (1992)- L – time consuming Ley (1988)

Usefulness

Johnson and Bytheway (2000)- customize treatment/ Generalization Chung and Naya (2000)- but ethics Burke et al (1997) –patient involved, I.differences Bob Lewin (1992)

Qual/Quan

Johnson and Bytheway (2000)- quan, qual Chung and Naya (2000)- quan

Self reports/ objective methods

Johnson and Bythway (2000)- free from bias, first hand- interviews, dairies and observation Self report, practitioners estimates - easy to use, first hand info D.C/ s.d Pill and bottle counts/Mechanical/ Repeat prescriptions Practitioner’s estimates and therapeutic outcome Validity questionable of all methods Reliability Sherman et al (2000)- concurrent validity

Ethics

Johnson and Bytheway (2000)- taken consent Chung and Naya (2000)- though consent taken but no explicit details

SEN

Reliability

DSM V- updated a number of times Bridges,1969 – giftedness Measurable tests to find etiology- Weak central coherence theory, theory of mind Renzulli (1977)- 20 years of study- re-test reliability

Validity

INTERNAL

DSM V but can it really be classified, so many differences Selikowitz( 1998)- based on research/ CRITERION VALIDITY Renzulli (1977)- research backed/ CRITERION VALIDITY Environmental explanation of autism/Cog- contradictory evidence Biological explanation- measurable

ECOLOGICAL/GENERALIZATION

Natural experiments- Autism Renzulli (1977)- diff socioeconomic backgrounds Different ways in which SEN is manifested

Usefulness:

Assessment- Easier to identify, strategies/ETHICS Cog- not where it’s coming from

Nature/Nurture

Etiology- NATURE Strategies-NURTURE

Reductionism vs Holism

Giftedness- 6 types- holistic, wide criteria for 3 diseases Selikowitz- reductionist Each etiology approach is reductionist

Individual differences

6 different types of giftedness Different strategies- caters to people Manifests itself differently

IND/ SIT

I- disease S-Strategies

Ethics:

Diagnosis- labeling Segregation- labeling

Pain

Reliability

•Rating scales- overall picture/comparison

UAB- most yield quan data/ Need inter-observer reliability McGill pain questionnaire- Reliability. Retest over 3 to 7 days showed that respondents tended

to choose the same words in the PRI and report the same PPI level. The SF-MPQ was further revised in 2009 for the use in neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain

conditions (SF-MPQ-2). This new version includes 7 additional symptoms related to neuropathic pain, for a total of 22 items with 0-10 numerical response options.

When evaluating the test-retest reliability of the SF-MPQ in patients with musculoskeletal pain, the results were adequate (r>70).[3] When examining the same questionnaire in patients with rheumatic pain, the results were significantly higher (r>85).

Validity

INTERNAL

Specificity theory- Outdated, criticisms Gate Control Theory-Research backed/C.V It is seen as being generally reliable and valid (Karoly, 1985). D.C AND S.D- Self reports, Interviews MPQ- toothache , arthritis but mostly same and multidimensional For example, Lovejoy et al demonstrated an excellent reliability and validity for the use of the

SF-MPQ-2 in a group of U.S. veteran patients with chronic neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain.[8][4]

Trudeau et al. conclude that the SF-MPQ-2 is a valid instrument to assess pain qualities in patients with acute low back pain.

UAB- experimenter bias Physiological methods- Low internal validity/observable- can’t be faked Operant conditioning- research/C.R Alternative treatments- Contradictory evidence, acupuncture- no convincing evidence Research shows that TENS is not effective in reducing acute pain (Johnson, 2001) van der Spank (2000) reported 96 per cent satisfaction with the treatment and significantly less

pain during the birth. Biofeedback Cognitive methods- success depends on confounding variables such as imagination

EXTERNAL/GENERLIZATION/C.R

MPQ- 50 diff languages The SF-MPQ has been developed for adults with chronic pain, including pain due to rheumatic

conditions,[3] but recent research has also proven usefulness of the SF-MPQ-2 in patients with acute low back pain.

Literacy rate- western countries Expensive- Physiological measures Language versions other than English may not match exactly the words on the original English

version. Therefore, one must be cautious about comparing populations across language and cultural groups.

physical readings- equally applicable UAB- Cultural relativism low Varni and Thompson (1976) Techniques cannot be generalized to all pains Attention diversion- Don’t apply to high pain takes longer to start among people who catastrophize a great deal than those who do not

(Campbell et al., 2010).

Red/Holism

Specificity theory and pattern theory- cog/emotional states Gate Control Theory-multidimensional, diff ways but emotional/social and long term pain Pain dairies Rating scales- quan Physiological measures- quan and also may feel pain only at that time

Usefulness

3 aspects-explains things previous theories were unable to but not measurable Physiological measures- hard to isolate them Self report measures- first hand measures/ D.c and S.D UAB- Cultural relativism low/ can’t compare ratings, low reliability Medicines but side effects Psychological techniques- research but takes time, not effective with all pains Operant conditioning- research but reward, willingness Attention diversion- Don’t apply to high pain takes longer to start among people who catastrophize a great deal than those who do not

(Campbell et al., 2010).

Quan/Qual

Most measures gather quan data apart from MPQ questions and colouring of visual images Heart rate and physiological measures Advantage- reliable and valid D- Heart rate- no explanatory power Many reasons- not explained through the pain rating- thoughts/cognitions No way to measure emotional pain

Nature vs Nurture

Phantom Limb pain- Nature/Nurture Gate Control Theory /PREV theories MPQ Techniques

Ind/Sit

Distraction- open to individual differences Imagination Alternative techniques

Disruptive behavior

Reliability

Def of disruptive behavior

Validity (INTERNAL)

•ADHD- Bullet 1- Existed in DSM V- tested and validated over time

Genes aren’t obvious for ADHD Criterion validity- biological perspective, behavioural , meta analysis Kounin(1990)- subjective measures, not measurable Presland (1990)-Explanation based on operant conditioning- used time and again in different

settings, SEN, token economy But low in internal validity as can’t form a cause and effect relationship between teacher and child

behavior, laughter can also be reinforcement Cotton (1990) reported that many studies had found that reinforcements applied selectively were

effective at improving disruptive behavior Cognitive-behavioural strategies are widely used and have been found to be successful in many

areas of psychology (e.g. abnormality)

EXTERNAL/GENERLIZATION

1st bullet point- C.R- doesn’t depend of lang, pen and paper tests but observation but subjective concept that varies from culture to culture

Cotton- meta analysis Meichenbaum (1971)-This experiment used a task with low ecological validity for most

classrooms (line drawing), and an unrepresentative sample(impulsive and hyperactive children). The same results might therefore not be generalisable to other samples or tasks.

Red/Holism

H- Types of disruptive behavior- different reasons under conduct, different versions of ADHD R- Biological-ignores upbringing, most of this model focuses on genes Behaviour focus on environment , focus on operant conditioning but social learning is also

important R- Cotton (1990)- situational, H- several different contributory factors R- Kounin (1990)- situational, H- different areas teachers need to work on R-Presland (1990)- Operant conditioning- behaviourist, doesn’t look at cognitions H-Meichenbaum (1971)- Behaviour and cognitions, 5 step process, both individual and

situational

Usefulness

1st bullet point- Helps identify and diagnose disruptive behavior- deal with them 2nd bullet point- know the cause, can manage and give medication or use techniques Cotton (1990)- less burden on counselors, student involvement Kounin (1990)- most of the burden to the teacher Presland (1990)- takes a cause and targets it Simple to understand BUT what happens once the reward taken away- symptom substitution The teacher is not the only person who can provide reinforcement in a class. Laughter from

peers etc may still encourage bad behaviour. Other students may find it unfair that someone is being praised for doing things that they do regularly, without receiving the same reinforcements.

Meichenbaum (1971)- Students become independent but time consuming

Individual differences

Bullet 1- manifests differently Operant conditioning/Behaviourist explanation- reward for someone can be punishment for

someone else Broader phenotype- Autism Presland (1990)-Different goals- Incentive theory

Individual/ Situational

S- school rules, warm environment, teachers, community I- Kounin (1990)- Everyone caters to individual differences- a way of learning for everyone S- Kounin (1990)- Change focused on the teacher BOTH- Meichenbaum (1971)

Nature vs Nurture

Nature- childbirth, impulsivity gene, attachment style

Nurture- Behavioural- operant conditioning, social learning- attention- poor parenting and teaching, teaching style, parenting style, environment

Techniques- all nurture based

Ethics

Presland (1990)- extinction

Intelligence

- Mention age group- C.R- language of the test, affects other scores, vocab tested first- Difficult to compare then (CON)- Gardener (diff emphasis and Goleman- low- Factor analysis- low in ecological v- from experience- Link usefulness to predictive validity- The original version of the test, published in 1905, had 30 categories, some of which were

quite unusual, such as 'Recognition of Food' and 'Repetition of Sentences of Fifteen Words'. As time went on, the best test items and the best categories were identified, and the test was refined. No confounding variables

- The potential for a variety of comparisons, especially for within or across factors and verbal/nonverbal domains, has been appreciated with the scores received from the SB5 (Bain & Allin, 2005).

- Several reliability tests have been performed on the SB5 including split-half reliability, standard error of measurement, plotting of test information curves, test-retest stability, and inter-scorer agreement. On average, the IQ scores for this scale have been found to be quite stable across time (Janzen, Obrzut, & Marusiak, 2003). Internal consistency was tested by split-half reliability and was reported to be substantial and comparable to other cognitive batteries (Bain & Allin, 2005). The median interscorer correlation was found to be .90 on average (Janzen, Obrzut, & Marusiak, 2003). The SB5 has also been found to have great precision at advanced levels of performance meaning that the test is especially useful in testing children for giftedness (Bain & Allin, 2005). There have only been a small amount of practice effects and familiarity of testing procedures with retest reliability, however, these have proven to be insignificant. Readministration of the SB5 can occur in a six-month interval rather than one year due to the small mean differences in reliability (Bain & Allin, 2005).

- The test has been criticized for not being comparable for all age ranges. (GENERALIZABILITY)- Reliability- quan data- Validity – updated - Holisitic- diff categories, Reductionist- not generalizable, - PSYCHOMETRIC- It combined a point-scale system, which allowed much easier comparison between

individuals.

- The WAIS is considered to be a valid and reliable measure of general intelligence. When undergoing reliability and validity studies, other intelligence tests are often compared to the Wechsler scales. It is regularly used by researchers in many areas of psychology as a measure of intelligence. Research has demonstrated correlations between WAIS IQ scores and a variety of socioeconomic, physiological, and environmental characteristics. CRITERION VALIDITY

- The WAIS has also been found to be a good measure of both fluid and crystallized intelligence. (CONSTRUCT VALIDITY)

- The structure for the WISC-IV was changed in order to make the instrument more consistent with research and with contemporary theory concerning the structure and nature of intelligence (Zhu & Weiss, 2005)

- The WISC–V is also linked with measures of achievement, adaptive behavior, executive function, and behavior and emotion. Equivalency studies were also conducted within the Wechsler family of tests and with a Kaufman test (the KABC-II) enabling comparisons between various intellectual ability scores over the lifespan. A number of concurrent studies were conducted to examine the scale's reliability and validity. Evidence of the convergent and discriminant validity of the WISC–V is provided by correlational studies with the following instruments: WISC–IV, WPPSI–IV, WAIS–IV, WASI–II, KABC–II, KTEA–3, WIAT–III, NEPSY–II, Vineland–II, and BASC–II. Evidence of construct validity was provided through a series of factor-analytic studies and mean comparisons using matched samples of special group and nonclinical children.

- This is usually done through a process called pattern analysis, in which the various subtests' scores are compared to one another (ipsative scoring) and clusters of unusually low scores in relation to the others are searched for. David Wechsler himself suggested this in 1958.[1]

-- However, the research does not show this to be a very effective way to diagnose ADHD or

learning disabilities.- Generalizabilty- adult and children /LOW- to all gifted people - Test-retest reliability - Critetion validity- Cutural relativism high- tested on Americans, geography and literature are crystallized

intelligence - Usefulness- Verbal IQ (written)- diagnose dsylexia- Holistic- subtests- fluid and crystallized- A new Scoring and Reporting Service makes the conversion of BAS3 scores much quicker,

easier and less prone to clerical errors- The various subtest correlate with each other- criterion validity - General IQ scores from the BAS correlate quite highly with independent measures of

scholastic and academic attainment (Elliot, 1983)\- Myers (1988) noted that for the S-B test, the Wais and the WISC, the reliability scores are 0.90

(retested)- The theory has recently been modified further to incorporate environmental, moral and

spiritual intelligence.

Gardner also stressed that intelligence is defined within the context of culture, so what is intelligent for one culture may not be so for another. Sternberg's analytic/componential intelligence is very similar to the sort of intelligence that IQ tests would measure - involving logical reasoning, working memory and abstract processing. Criterion validity

The contextual/practical subtheory highlights the importance of the environment and cultural variation. Intelligence here is the successful adaptation to the environment. This could be assessed by asking people what is intelligent or stupid in their culture. In the west this might involve problem-solving or social competence but different results might be expected in different cultures.

Reliability

Validity

INTERNAL

EXTERNAL/GENERLIZATION

Red/Holism

Snapshot/Longitudinal

Usefulness

Quan/Qual

Nature vs Nurture

Ethics

Psychometric, usefulness, quan, gen- tests

Reliability scores +0.90- Stanford-Binet test, the WAIS and the WISC- Myres (1998)

PROBLEM Solving

Usefulness, cognitive, generalizability, ind vs sit

Def of intelligence- C.R

Stanford-Binet test- usefulness, C.R- US

Generalizability

Reliability- quan data

Validity – updated

Holisitic- diff categories, Reductionist- not generalizable,

PSYCHOMETRIC

Weschler Because intelligence is multifaceted, Wechsler believed, a test measuring intelligence must reflect this multitude of skills, fluid and crystallized

US-standarization

The test may also serve to better evaluate children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other behavior disorders.

Generalizabilty- adult and children /LOW- to all gifted people

Test-retest reliability

Critetion validity

Cutural relativism high- tested on Americans, geography and literature are crystallized intelligence

Usefulness- Verbal IQ (written)- diagnose dsylexia

Holistic- subtests- fluid and crystallized

STRENGTHS Psychometric tests

are objective and scientific: everyone gets the same questions and there is no interpretation of the results required from the experimenter.VALIDITY

They are also reliable. Scores on IQ tests tend to be highly correlated to each other, increasing their reliability. For example, the WISC IV correlates at 0.89 with the WISC III.

They allow the predication of future performance. This has many useful applications in the real world, for example streaming in schools, job selections and so on.

USEFULNESS- Diagnose SEN Quan data- comparable

WEAKNESSES The tests are often accused of being ethnocentrically biased. They are tested on

Western samples and measure 'Western' concepts of intelligence. They also may use words or materials that are most familiar to Western individuals. All of this makes it far more likely that Western people will score more highly on the test, without necessarily being more intelligent. See the assignment below on 'IQ tests and ethnocentric bias- CULTURAL RELATIVISM

Although the tests are mostly valid and reliable indicators, they should only be used as an indicator of ability, rather than as a definitive rating system...CAUTION IS OFTEN IGNORED IN THE USE OF THE TESTS. The tests areenough to make very small scale discriminations of intelligence, but sometimes they are used to do just this, with hugely important consequences for the individual. See the assignment below on 'Atkins vs State of Virginia‘

Labelling is a major potential problem for IQ tests. One bad score on a test could lead to children being labelled as unintelligent, potentially damaging their futures.

Reductionist- snapshot, quant

Positives Very

scientific as it uses objective, quantifiable measurements (e.g. test scores and

Negatives Gardner, and humanistic

psychologists, would both argue that doing large-scale statistical analyses of people's intelligences ignores each individual's unique set of talents.

Reductionist - all our numerous skills and unique talents are reduced to a single 'general intelligence'. Leads to labelling

The theory reifies intelligence (see

correlation Supported by

large amounts of scientific data

Objective and unbiased

Less time consuming- well in one subtest

below for a definition and discussion of this)

The tests used to measure IQ may be vulnerable to ethnocentric bias.CULTURAL RELATIVISM

Gardner also stressed that intelligence is defined within the context of culture, so what is intelligent for one culture may not be so for another. Motivation

Reliability

Brophy (1981)- measurable Maslow (1970) McClelland (1953)- can change

Validity

Brophy (1981)- measurable, criterion validity, internal validity low because of complex factors Maslow (1970)- idea of self actualization open to bias as based on his interpretation, not

measurable and subjective because it’s unquantifiable, also levels McClelland (1953)- TAT measures it BUT subjective test Criterion validity- attribution theory Dweck et al, 1978 However it is hard to conclude from this that the conditions of the experiment

caused the difference between the groups, as a quasi-experiment where the two conditions (boys and girls) had already been treated differently for 11 years before the experiment began, it is likely that the two groups were already very different even before they were treated differently in the experiment. Participant variables are likely to have confounded the results. (internal validity)

EXTERNAL/GENERLIZATION

Brophy (1981) Praise does not affect everyone, mostly works on people from poor backgrounds, boys and those will external locus of control

Maslow (1970) Ethnocentricism- idea of self actualization

Red/Holism

R- Brophy (1981)- no focus on child’s cognitions- what if someone still makes the same attributions but individual/ situational- praise

Maslow (1990)- two sets of needs, individual/Situational McClelland (1953)- intrinsic motivation but praise, parents, associations Bandura (1977)- External (Experiences) and internal feelings/Nature and nurture / Situational

and Individual/ Physical and behaviourial Weiner (1984)- internal, external, 3 dimensions

Usefulness

Brophy (1981)- the negative effects of rewards- (Deci, 1971), can demotivate other students, Praise does not affect everyone, mostly works on people from poor backgrounds, boys and those will external locus of control

DETERMINISTIC but criterion validity and measurable as opposed to thoughts- staring at the teacher, also less

time consuming - A very simple strategy for teachers to use! It is free, easy to do and requires no planning on the

part of the teacher. Hugely influential - praise is used in schools (and other settings) all around the world, so the

theory clearly has useful and important applications to the real world. Maslow (1970)- His ideas have been very widely adopted, especially in business circles. Stimulated much further research about the nature of intrinsic motivation, which is still ongoing

today but validity McClelland (1953)- helps understand intrinsic motivation and ways it is learned BUT mostly

deterministic Bandura (1977)- holistic, caters to individual differences Weiner (1984)- links up with almost every attribution theory, can change attributions by

understanding reason- learned helplessness and deCharms, 1977 but time consuming task

Nature vs Nurture

Brophy (1981)-NURTURE- the effect of reward Maslow and McClelland- both Bandura (1977)- both

Individual/Situational

Brophy (1981)- Specific praise given- individual but situational- praise/no focus on child’s cognitions

Incentive theory- I/ S Maslow (1970)- Individual ( self actualization, self esteem) and situational needs (sense of

belonging, love) McClelland (1953)- intrinsic motivation but praise, parents, associations Bandura (1977)

Comparison between approaches

Health Promotion:

Reliability

Walter (1985)Since all groups brought similar results and advantage becomes that using this information for your own benefit is likely to show the same results.

Gomel (1993)- Test-re test reliability, also community studies McVey and Stapelton (2000)- •Multiple interviewers, hence high inter rater reliability. •Control region selected and several pilot studies done which increases the overall reliability of

the study. Lack of reliability and validity- how it is taught-Walter (1985), Tapper et al.(2003)

Validity

INTERNAL

Janis and Feshback (1953)- interviews, Prone to demand characteristics The available evidence on the interest value of high fear is not consistent. Further research may

help in determining the situations in which high fear may arouse interest and the situations in which high fear may depress interest. LOW CRITERION VALIDITY

BUT- The independent variable was well defined and manipulated and therefore we can argue that the study was high in validity

No individual differences- roughly matched/ girls and boys- NO CONFOUNDING VARIABLES Criterion validity- Janis and Feshback and Leventhal et al- don’t back each other’s findings, Although Janis and Feshbach is supported more, Very disturbing images may distract people

from the message itself or may evoke an ‘avoidance’ reaction (Keller & Block, 1995) BUT inconsistent findings on fear appeal

Although in article ‘ FIFTEEN YEARS OF FEAR AROUSAL:RESEARCH ON THREAT APPEALS: 1953-1968’, KENNETH L. HIGBEE highlights that high fear appeal may not be effective as suggested by other studies, adding weight to Janis and Feshbach’s study.

Leventhal et al (1967)- self reports- demand characteristics Also was there a direct IV-DV relationship- maybe just repulsed by the operation

Yale model of communication- Criterion validity-Many specific predictions of the model have been supported. For example, that attitude change depends on the expertise and trustworthiness of the source.

Walter (1985) Use of physiological measures Gomel (1993)- Confounding variable- Only 24 completed the tests and these were probably the

most motivated to give up smoking. This fact makes the results more convincing that despite a reasonable level of motivation, many smokers were unsuccessful in quitting.

Concurrent validity- physiological measures(validity) and self report (Social desirability and demand characteristics)

Community studies- CONCURRENT VALIDITY Farquhar- all demographically the same – no confounding variable McVey and S- Outcome measure was self reported smoking status and did not include validation

of smoking status of smoke intake. This may have led to a small number of smokers being incorrectly classified as having stopped

Dannenberg- With an overall survey response rate of 48%, it is important to determine whether the non-respondents differed significantly from the respondents. (VALIDITY)

Despite assurances of anonymity, some children may have given socially desirable responses that did not represent their actual beliefs or practices.

Tapper- Concurrent validity- subset from parents, validity, criterion validity

EXTERNAL

Janis and Feshback (1953)- Low in generalization/P.V- high school students, age, socio economic class, Connecticut, freshman students, Generalisability is low because we cannot easily generalise the results to other fear appeals for example of smoking or drink driving, Also, the information presented was only on dental hygiene so we cannot say that the same effect will apply to information about anything else, for example information about food consumption or cancer.

Even though threat-appeal studies have used at least 16 different topics, this diversity has seldom been considered as an important source of inconsistency in findings. For example, Duke (1967) designed a study as a test of the Janis and Feshbach (1953) findings. However, Duke used a different topic (syphilis rather than dental hygiene), as well as different subjects (college students rather than high school students). Duke's findings concerning learning of factual content were different from those of Janis and Feshbach.

Responses to fear arousal differ among individuals. Characteristics of the recipients which may influence how they respond to fear appeals include self-esteem, coping style, and feelings of vulnerability to danger. Chronic anxiety level has been suggested as an important variable, but its interaction with fear level is not supported by research findings.

BUT entire freshman class, large high school, low in ecological validity- lab experiment Leventhal et al (1967)- only smokers, snapshot Lewin - HIGH GENERALIZABILITY- 200/ LOW- Heart patients

Gomel (1993)-Gomel’s ambulance workers were drawn from a workforce made up of mainly smokers, so there might have been a lot of social pressure for them to continue to smoke.

Only 24 completed the tests and these were probably the most motivated to give up smoking. Generalization/Pop validity- 24 people, workplace, nature of job, motivated to quit, mix of

male/female Community studies- Reach a large number of individuals( most generalizable) Community studies- only one type (heart diseases) Farquhar- all demographically the same McVey and S-High because a large sample was selected, with men and women and smokers and

non smokers. Low because only from the European regions and only adults aged 16 plus were interviewed.

Dannenberg (1993)-The survey was administered to children in the fourth, seventh, and ninth grades,A total of 47 schools were randomly selected

The survey was conducted at a sample of suburban and rural schools in three Maryland counties whose populations are predominantly in the middle and upper socioeconomic classes.

Tapper- Generalization- two diff age groups (4-7 and 7-11 years), different areas

Snapshot/Longitudinal

Janis and Feshback (1953)- 1 week before survey, 15 min presentations, immediately after, 1 week after- S

Leventhal et al (1967)- Snapshot- no guarantee if they will continue to stop smoking Walter et al (1985), 2 community studies- Longitudinal – 2 years Gomel (1993) Longitudinal study (6 weeks)- compensatory Tapper et al (2003) – L- 16 days McVey and Stapleton- It was done over a period of 18 months, hence more data was gathered,

making it holistic.

Red/Holism

Janis and Feshback (1953)-Reductionist- quan data only, low population validity,only using fear arousal, 1 type of medical issue BUT levels of fear arousal

Leventhal et al (1967)- only smokers, snapshot ALL LONGITUDINAL STUDY Refer to generalization for reductionism Community studies- only one type (heart diseases)

Usefulness

Janis and Feshback (1953), helps us understand that fear arousal needs to of the right intensity BUT inconsistent

Yale model of communication-This has led psychologists to look at the science of persuasion to discover how to change attitudes with the ultimate goal of changing behaviour.

The Yale attitude change approach has generated a great deal of research, and insight, into the nature of persuasion.This approach has helped not only social psychologists to understand the process of persuasion, but also companies in making their marketing and advertising strategies more effective.

•It has shown the importance of cognitive factors. It has outlined the processes (e.g. attention, comprehension) that recipients use when presented with a message. Also, validity

BUT Like most other theories about persuasion and attitude change, this approach is not perfect. Rather than being a systematic theory about persuasive communications, this approach is more of a general framework within which the research was conducted. The researchers at Yale did not specify the levels of importance among different factors of a persuasive message; instead they emphasized more on analyzing the aspects of attitude change rather than comparing them.

Walter- 2 groups- comparison, This study becomes high in usefulness also because it shows that fitting something new to improve health in education really works and helps people stay healthy from a young age.

Gomel (1993)- concurrent validity and re-test reliability Community studies- longitudinal and generalizability

Ethics: (A/ D- A-Able to be published, D- not true picture)

Low protection- Janis and Feshbach Leventhal- physical and psychological harm- smoking Three community study and Farquhar et al, 1977, Walter- don’t provide info to control Tapper- HIGH

Stress:

Reliability

Geer and Maisel (1972)- Tightly controlled- 60 sec break, 10 sec bell, same picture Johansson (1978)-How levels of stress vary- TEST- RETEST RELIABILITY The baseline measurements were taken at the same time on a day- RELIABILTIY Lazarus (1981) and Holmes and Rahe (1976)- quan data Physiological measures-quantifiable

Validity

INTERNAL

GAS- observable effects of stress Geer and Maisel- Validity- physiological measures (concurrent), Internal validity- controlled

experiment BUT no baseline measures ,Psyc students- demand characteristics

Friedman and Rosenman (1974)Type A- (Jenkins) Psychometric measure- VALIDITY Studies carried out on women have not shown such a major difference between Type A and

Type B and subsequent health. This may suggest that different coping strategies are just as important as personality.

INTERNAL VALIDITY- The study was able to control for other important variables, such as smoking and lifestyle. This is good as it makes it less likely that such extraneous variables could confound the results of the study.

Johansson (1978)- baseline, physiological measures, concurrent validity, social desirability Holmes and Rahe (1967)-The correlation between illness and SRRS is not very strong/ Predictive

validity Items are vague and ambiguous (change in responsibility at work – what does it mean? More

responsibility or less. Or personal injury or illness – someone with a flu will get the same score as someone who became paralyzed).

Scale does not consider the meaning or impact of an event for the individual (e.g., mortgage of $50,000 will be stressful for one person but non-stressful for another). Does not cater to individual differences

Does not take subjective appraisal into account (e.g., death of spouse – was there dependency, close relationships, happiness in marriage, etc.).

Does not distinguish between desirable and undesirable states (e.g., finances). Physiological measures- confounding variables- The measurement technique may itself be

stressful for some people, Affected by a person’s gender, body weight, activity prior to, or during measurement and consumption of various substances, such as caffeine but easy, objective and quantifiable

PMR- Research has shown that it is highly effective in reducing stress Systematic desensitization Budzynski (1973)- Sarafino (2006) Bridges (1988) – Concurrent, baseline, d.characteristics

EXTERNAL/GENERLIZATION

GAS- rats Geer and Maisel- 60 students, New York University, psyc students, low Ecological validity Friedman and Rosenman (1974)- Because the study used an all male sample it is unknown if the

results could be generalized to a female population. Although HIGH FIGURE Johansson, 1976- 24 people, Swedish sawmill Holmes and Rahe, 1967- Correlations between groups were tested and found to be high in all

but one group. Males, females agreed. Participants of different ages, religions, educational level agreed.There was less correlation between white and black participants. - 394 subjects

Physiological measures- C.R PMR-It is easy to learn and can be adapted for children and adults-GENERALIZATION Budzynski (1973)- 18 vounteers, tension headaches only, even with children Meichenbaum (1985)- - Flexible and GENERALIZABLE

Medicine- Expensive- Cultural relativism

Red/Holism

GAS- physiological response/ no cognitive response, situational rather than individual (cognitive appraisal), individual differences and quan data

.For example, some stressors lead to an increase in three hormones, while others with lower emotional responses only increase two hormones.

Geer and Maisel- apart from lack of control, other stressors, quan data Johansson (1978)–urine samples/body tempature and self report for mood and nicotine,

caffeine consumption Lazarus (1981)- Hassles Scale lists 115, Uplifts scale- 135, combined- 117 Lazarus (1981) and Holmes and Rahe (1976)- quan data Holmes and Rahe (1967) Items included represent a fairly wide range of events that most people

find stressful- HOLISTIC- 43 life events Budzyski (1973)- physiological and cognitive Meichenbaum (1985)- HOLISTIC- number of techniques Medicine-Reductionist- emotions- 2 factor theory

- Snapshot/Longitudinal

Geer and Maisel - S Friedman and Rosenman (1974)- L, long term effects of stress, 8.5 years but attrition Budzynski (1973)- 8 weeks-LONGITUDNAL- overall effects of stress Bridges (1988)- 6 weeks-L

Usefulness

GAS- Thanks to Selye, the connection between extreme, prolonged stress and certain diseases is now widely accepted by medical experts

BUT reductionism, generalizability Geer and Maisel (1972)- help to improve control by working on turning to an internal locus of

control Friedman and Rosenman (1974)- long term effects of stress on such personality types, after

diagnosis can learn stress relieving strategies Johansson (1978)-Ethical/ Useful- only way possible- QUASI Holmes and Rahe (1967) Lazarus- Important to maintain daily health Physiological measures- confounding variables but easy, objective and quantifiable Systematic desensitization- Time consuming , Not dealing with root cause- subconscious Budzyski (1973)- physiological and cognitive , validity Meichenbaum (1985)- HOLISTIC and caters to individual differences- Flexible and

GENERALIZABLE Bridges (1988)

Medicines- Quick, instant relief BUT Can get addicted, Shuts down, Side effects

Quan/Qual GAS- Quan Geer and Maisel- Quan Lazarus (1981) and Holmes and Rahe (1976)- quan data Physiological measures- quan

Nature vs Nurture

GAS- Nature Type A personality- Nature Techniques- nurture

Ethics

GAS- protection of rats Geer and Maisel- psychological harm, physical harm / consent, withdrawal, confidentiality Friedman and Rosenman (1974)- labeling Johansson (1978)-Ethical/ Useful- only way possible- QUASI Unethical to ask patients about their stress

Ind/ Sit:

GAS- Both- process Systematic desensitization-BOTH Work – S Type A personality- I

Individual differences

GAS- does not look at this, generalizes everyone’s states Life events scale (Holmes and Rahe, 1967) Systematic desensitization Meichenbaum (1985)- - Flexible and GENERALIZABLE

Health and safety:

Validity:

INTERNAL

Fox et al, 1987- operant conditioning-IV- DV relationships, high CRITERION VALIDITY but the negative effects of rewards (Deci)

Cowpe et al (1989)- fear arousal doesn’t work, need to give information, backed by studies in HEALTH PROMOTION CHAP- high in CRITERION VALIDITY

EXTERNAL (Ecological validity)

Relevant points could include ecological validity (e.g. high in most studies, as they are real world examples like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Titanic, Barber; or field studies like Fox and Cowpe),

Generalizability- Laio et al, present day study/ Riggio- universal concepts- could talk about C.R

Red/Holism

Theory A and B (Reason, 2000)- considers both aspects(Individual and S) but often difficult to single out a particular cause, complex interaction

Reasons theory and Riggio’s model are holistic, whereas Barber(only focuses on cognitive approach), Fox (only focuses on situation and the behaviourist approach) and Cowpe (only on one mode of communication)

Ind/Situational

Theory A and B- considers both Most of the theories and examples are both, but Titanic is more about how if the individuals had

been more careful, the result would not have been so disastrous hence more individual. Riggio’s theory is also more about the errors an individual makes).

Fox - situational

Usefulness

Theory A and B- help identify where improvements can be made usefulness (e.g. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Titanic, Barber, Fox, Cowpe, Riggio, Reasons) Would the workers in Fox’s study continue to work safely without the incentive of rewards, or

how Cowpe only works for those people with access to media and television, AND VALIDITY

Ethics

First define what is meant by ethical guidelines - these are a set of guidelines which psychologists carrying out research should follow. Examples of ethical guidelines include consent, deception, debriefing, protection of participants, right to withdraw, consent for observation, and confidentiality. THESE GUIDELINES MAY BE BROKEN OR MAINTAINED.

Ethical issues related to labeling include: psychological harm/poor protection of participants because if someone is labeled as Type A or an introvert, the research says they’re more accident prone. Hence they may have trouble being and remaining employed.

Rosenhan’s study from AS taught us that labels tend to stick and hence may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy where people may not believe they are capable of staying accident free. Plus, research on introversion and extroversion is contradictory so we can’t even say for sure which personality type is more accident prone.

On the other hand, knowing which personality types are more accident prone can also lead to MORE protection of participants, as they can be placed in less hazardous work conditions. Similarly, young children and old age people are reported to be more accident prone which means we can protect them by making sure they are supervised and have adequate support. Titanic’s illusion of invulnerability example, and Barber’s cognitive overload example illustrate the importance of being cautious and not bombarding people with too much information, thereby providing greater protection of participants.

Unfortunately in the case of Titanic though – because it is such a high profile case - an ethical guideline that was violated was confidentiality as we know the name of the ship’s captain and designers. Hence in singling out that case to show how being labeled as having an illusion of invulnerability is dangerous, their privacy was invaded.

Learning and teaching styles:

Reliability

Curry (1983)-Inner layer- psychometric testing/ also likely to stay constant – reliability Grasha (1996)- Lack of reliability- not stable Psychometrics / Entwistle (1981) and Kolb (1976)– yields quan data/comparable Kyriachou and Williams (1993)- quan data

Validity

Curry (1983)-Inner layer measurable- psychometric testing/ also likely to stay constant –PREDICTIVE validity BUT layers which aren’t constant- LOW PREDICTIVE VALIDITY

Grasha (1996)-Limited validity-not measurable- no test, low predictive validity Bennett (1976)- Can be measured using Kyriacou and Williams (1993) Fontana (1995)- cannot be easily measured. How do you measure if teacher is aware of students

or is allowing them to make informed choices? Psychometrics The 4MAT system. It has been used in thousands of teaching settings for over 25 years.

CRITERION VALIDITY- ADVANCE ORGANIZERS from Perspectives on Education very similar to the first part of the system, CONCURRENT VALIDITY- teacher must use all four methods, BUT based on left and right brained- not backed by research

PQRST and similar critical reading methods are supported by experimental evidence, as they have been shown to improve learning in a variety of subjects, CRITERION VALIDITY- Self-recitation works well, Selikowitz (1998)- Alpha to omega scheme in the SEN chap

Lefrancois (1997) found that the SPELT program produced "very positive" improvements in learning. This was particularly noticeable for students with learning difficulties, but improvements also occurred in a range of other students. This was in a project involving 900 children, so it was a large and varied sample. VALIDITY

the ‘T’ testing part is a way to measure how effective the learning technique is and hence internal validity is possible to gauge; in the case of Mulcahey’s metacognition approach, it’s based almost entirely on internal validity and predictive criterion validity because the idea is that the teacher teaches the student thinking strategies about what has worked and what doesn’t work, meaning what techniques had internal validity and which didn’t, and the student then predicts which techniques can be used again).

McCarthy’s teaching approach isn’t exactly measurable – how can one measure how much motivation the teacher has been able to provide?

Nature vs Nurture

Curry (1983)- Nature- cognitive personality style, other styles- nurture Grasha (1996)- focuses on nurture, show used a variety Entwistle (1981)- allows to find out areas which you can improve so NURTURE 3rd bullet point- NURTURE

Individual differences (ADV- can cater to them BUT time consuming, lacking evidence)

Curry (1983)- different instructional preference, informational processing style and cognitive personality style

Grasha (1996)- Does not really say anyone has a fixed style, but says we should use different styles according to situation

MEASUREMENT- one assimilator may be different from another assimilator Entwistle (1981)- allows to find out areas which you can improve, 4 different orientations, covers

the different orientations in different societies for e.g Chinese vs Western societies All three strategies in the 3rd bullet point- 4 MAT system- left and right brained, PQRST- visual and

auditory styles, SPELT- student identifies what works best for them

Red/Holism

Curry (1983)- Holistic- 3 layers, Nature and Nurture, learning happens at internal and external level, Individual and Situational level

Reductionist- people more complicated, may vary from subjects, mood, situation, chemistry with teacher changes

MEASUREMENT- 2nd bullet- reduce you down to a label Grasha (1996)- 6 different styles to be used in different situations BUT only focuses on nurture Entwistle (1981)- Holistic- 4 diff orientations but only quan data All three strategies in the 3rd bullet point

Usefulness

Curry (1983)- allows us to understand that learning happens at different levels, Validity, Reliability, can help teacher bring variety, Holistic view but Reductionism/ Low predictive validity

Grasha (1996)- Holism but Validity, Reliability, I.differences

Kyriacou and Williams (1993)- helps measure Bennet (1976) Entwistle (1981)- allows to find out areas which you can improve e.g time management, 4

different orientations, also decide what subjects to take Kolb (1976)- can be applied through the 4 MAT system- Theoretical backing, can identify how to

improve weak areas through the experiential learning cycle ETHICAL ISSUES OF LABELLING- 2nd bullet point/Measurement 4 MAT system- Holism, I diff, Validity BUT limited Validity and time consuming PQRST- validity, generalizable to different age groups/subjects SPELT- individual differences, role of teacher and student- Holistic but time consuming