Question

RESEARCH SUMMARY

A researcher is interested in the relationship between watching TV and cognitive achievement. Cognitive achievement is the ability to learn and remember information. The researcher hypothesized that the more TV a person watched, the lower their performance would be on tests of cognitive achievement. To test this hypothesis, the researcher recruited eighty young adults who live alone. They put a video camera in the living room of the dwelling. The individuals only had a TV in the living room. They taped continuously for one week. Multiple research assistants coded how long each participant watched TV. They did not include times when the TV was on but no one was visibly watching it. They did not include times when someone was sitting in front of the TV but not paying attention to the TV. They then had each participant complete a task that measures working memory (one of our cognitive abilities). The task involved reciting the alphabet while also counting (A 1 B 2 C 3 D 4 … etc) up to the total of 52 possible items. Performance was coded by the number of correct items completed before an error was made. The researcher found that those who watched more TV performed worse on the task (r = -.31, p<.05).

Part A.
1. (State the research question in plain language (I wonder if ___ is related to ___)
2. State the null hypothesis
3. State the research hypothesis
4. Is the research hypothesis directional or non-directional?

Part B.
1. Name the Predictor / Independent Variable
2. Give the operational definition of the Predictor / Independent Variable.
3. Evaluate the construct validity of the Predictor / Independent Variable (Be sure to consider face, method, and procedural aspects though not all aspects will necessarily need to be discussed; point out strengths and weaknesses of this measure.)

Part C. Is the Predictor/ Independent variable categorical or continuous? Select one

Part D. Was the Predictor/ Independent variable manipulated? Was it under the experimenter's control? Select

                                       Yes or No

Part E. If the predictor / independent variable was measured (not manipulated), how was it measured? Select one

- observation or

- self-report or

- physiological or

- it was manipulated

Part F. Will the researchers be able to determine causation from this predictor / independent variable? Select                                  Yes or No Part G. Considering the previous scenario: 1. Name the Outcome / Dependent Variable 2. Give the operational definition of the Outcome / Dependent Variable. 3. Evaluate the construct validity of the operational definition for the Outcome / Dependent Variable. (Be sure to consider face, method, and procedural aspects though not all aspects will necessarily need to be discussed; point out strengths and weaknesses of this measure.) Part H. Is the Outcome/ Dependent variable categorical or continuous? Select one Part I. How was the Outcome/ Dependent variable measured? Select one      - self-report or      - physiological or     - observation Part J. - Summarize the findings. What conclusion can be drawn about the relationship between these variables? Be sure to specify whether the relationship is causal or associative. Pro Tip: Your findings are going to look a lot like your hypothesis. To specify the comparison that was drawn, you might state that 1. The researchers compared the overall relationship between the two variables (For example: "They correlated how many hours a student studied in a week and their grade on an exam"); or 2. The researchers compared frequency (how many people fall into different groups: For example, "They counted how many students got A's, B's, C's, D's and F's on their tests for the students who reported studying less than 5 hours a week and those who reported studying more than 5 hours a week."); or 3. The researchers compared group averages. For example, "They compared the average test scores for the students who reported studying less than 5 hours a week to those who reported studying more than 5 hours a week."

Answer 1

Part A.

1. (State the research question in plain language (I wonder if ___ is related to ___)

Answer: I wonder if watching TV for long hours is related to hampered learning and remembering of information.

2. State the null hypothesis

Answer: There is no difference in the scores on a working memory task, between the adults who watched more hours of television as compared to those who watched less hours within a week time frame.

3. State the research hypothesis

Answer: The results of a test based on cognitive achievement will be impacted by the number of hours spent watching television.

4. Is the research hypothesis directional or non-directional?

Answer: The research hypothesis is directional as the researcher states that the more a person watches television, the lower their performance will be on the cognitive achievement test.

Part B.
1. Name the Predictor / Independent Variable

Answer: The IV is the number of hours of TV seen by the participants.

2. Give the operational definition of the Predictor / Independent Variable.

Answer: The operational definition of the IV is: The number of hours of TV seen by young adults who live alone within a week. The number of hours of television includes only the time when the participant watched the TV attentively.

3. Evaluate the construct validity of the Predictor / Independent Variable.

(Be sure to consider face, method, and procedural aspects though not all aspects will necessarily need to be discussed; point out strengths and weaknesses of this measure.)

Answer: The strength of the given measure is that it is high on construct validity, as it clearly is about number of hours of television watched. The second strength is in this method there is no segregation of control relating to a group not being able to watch the TV completely. The third strength is that the measure is for a week, which is a viable time to get a good average of TV viewed, the hours ad time frame would be skewed if the time span was shorter. Fourthly, the measure has a multiple coders during the process, so the researcher bias is also reduced.

The weakness of the measure is that there is no control group; a control group would have given more concrete evidence of the relationship. Secondly, there is confounding as there is no mention on the number of hours or consideration for someone more conveniently using mobile phones, laptops or I-pads for watching movies or other shows. This may be a major flaw within the result generated. Thirdly, the time noted and camera placement is such that there is no record of timings when someone isn’t visible even if the TV was on, as the location of certain living room and camera can be flawed, such a non-recording wouldn’t stand true to the research result.    

Part C. Is the Predictor/ Independent variable categorical or continuous? Select one

Answer: The variable is continuous variable as it is quantifiable.

Part D. Was the Predictor/ Independent variable manipulated? Was it under the experimenter's control? Select

Answer: No. The variable was not manipulated by the experimenter.

Part E. If the predictor / independent variable was measured (not manipulated), how was it measured? Select one

Answer: By observation. There were multiple coders that recorded the number of hours for each participant and had to follow a pre-informed condition for measuring the hours which included non-recording when the TV wasn’t watched attentively, or if the coder couldn’t view anyone watching the TV, etc.

Part F. Will the researchers be able to determine causation from this predictor /

independent variable? Select

Answer: Yes, this is so as there will be a difference between people who watch more television and those who watched limited hours of television when they perform a task which required high mental processing.

Part G. Considering the previous scenario:
1. Name the Outcome / Dependent Variable
Answer: The number of correct items completed on a working memory task.

2. Give the operational definition of the Outcome / Dependent Variable.
Answer: The number of correct items completed out of the 52 items given, while performing a working memory task involving reciting alphabet with simultaneous counting.

3. Evaluate the construct validity of the operational definition of the Outcome / Dependent Variable. (Be sure to consider face, method, and procedural aspects though not all aspects will necessarily need to be discussed; point out strengths and weaknesses of this measure.)

Answer: The construct validity of this variable is high as it is measuring cognitive abilities through competing ideas that require higher processing of the working memory.

The strength of the variable is that there are multiple items and recording is based on completed items before errors are made, this gives the variable a generous data to not have skewed results. Secondly, the task is continuous and simple which can usually be completed even by people with limited language knowledge. Thirdly the measure takes into account errors and doesn’t include them in the main scoring.

The weakness of such a method is that as the task has so many items, there might be confounding due to tiredness and fatigues. Secondly, there are no measures for errors which might also be useful to assess the difference between the participants and generate a more concrete understanding. Thirdly, there are no pre-test or such measures to test the participant's baseline performances and knowledge of the language.

Part H. Is the Outcome/ Dependent variable categorical or continuous? Select one

Answer: The outcome is categorical as the variable is on the ordinal scale and is discrete.

Part I. How was the Outcome/ Dependent variable measured? Select one

Answer: The outcome was measured through observation, as the number of correct items as recited before making errors was recorded by the coders.

Please post the “part J” as a separate question again as there is a limitation in the time for answering the question. Thank you.