This assignment must be written about the empirical journal article Sleep Deprivation and False Memories (Frenda), Experiment 2. PDF of this file will be included. PLEASE SEE THE PDF! There are two experiments in this study, but the paper should be focused on analyzing Experiment 2. There is information throughout the whole article that is helpful in answering the prompt questions, but FOCUS ON EXPERIMENT 2. This means that variables, procedure, results, and the Four Validities should all be about Experiment 2.
Step 2: 1.5-2 pages maximum
– Write about the article in everyday language, explaining the theory it was testing, the method used, the most important results, and the main points in the discussion. Do not plagiarize.
Follow this organizational structure in your summary:
– Descriiption of the article’s purpose and main hypothesis
– A clear statement of the study’s design: What were the main variables? Was it experimental or correlational?
Who participated? If it was an experiment, what were the IV’s or PV’s? What were the DVs? If it’s a factorial design, state it in __ x___ format. If it was correlational, what were the measured variables? If it’s another type of design, state what it is (e.g., a bivariate correlational study; an interrupted time series design; etc.).
– A methods paragraph in which you mention each key variable in turn, followed by how it was operationalized. (e.g., “The study measured the variable self-compassion using a self-report questionnaire developed by Neff; it had 25 items that were rated on 5-point scales.”). You’ll also describe the procedure they followed.
– A paragraph in which you describe the main results. Often this means describing a figure or table featured in the paper. If the study used regression, you must describe the main relationship as well as what it was controlling for (e.g., “Self-compassion predicted well-being, even when controlling for self-esteem and emotionality”). If it was a factorial design, describe the main effects and interactions.
– A short paragraph about the authors’ conclusions.
Step 3: 3.0-3.5 pages maximum
Interrogate the empirical article using the Four Big Validities (construct validity, internal validity, external validity, statistical validity)
1. Construct validity: Evaluate the measures and manipulations
Briefly, without repeating yourself from Step 2 too much, restate each variable and how it was operationalized. (“They operationalized ___ by doing _____”). Right after you describe each measure or manipulation, indicate any reliability and validity information provided in the article. Do they give Cronbach’s alphas (if so, what are they? Are they good or bad?) Do they give inter-rater reliabilities? Should they? (if so, what are they? What do they mean?) Do they give any evidence for predictive or concurrent validity, perhaps referring to how the measure has been used in past research? Using this information, give your assessment—is each measure reliable and valid?
If such information is not included for their measured variables, then evaluate that—what would you like to see, and why? (For example, should they have reported inter-rater reliability? Why is that important for that particular variable?)
For manipulated variables, are the manipulations construct valid, in your opinion? If it’s a manipulated variable, do manipulation checks affirm that their manipulation did what they intended it to do? Does the manipulation have face validity?
Be sure to ground all of your conclusions about construct validity in terms of your interpretation of information they present in the article.
2. Statistical validity: Evaluate how strongly the results support their argument.
– As you evaluate statistical validity, discuss how strongly and how well the results pattern supported the authors’ hypotheses. Do not report results that you don’t understand, but report p values if you notice that a pattern is statistically significant.
– For each major result, evaluate its effect size to the best of your ability. State the effect size if it’s given in terms you understand (e.g., if they give an r or d, you know how to interpret it as large, medium, or small). Are the major effects statistically significant? What does this mean? In addition, do you have any indication of the practical, or “real world” effect size? For example, perhaps you can report how many IQ points were increased or how much weight loss in pounds, or a reaction time in seconds.
3. Internal validity: Can the study support a causal claim? Does it intend to?
– First, state what specific causal claim the researchers wish to make (if it’s an experiment) or might hope to make, even if they cannot (if it’s a correlational study).
– If it’s an experiment, apply the causal rules, including the internal validity threats (pretest/pottest design?) Do any apply to your article? If not, what is your overall evaluation? Can they make a causal statement?
– If it’s a correlational or multiple regression design, apply the causal rules, and for internal validity, review what variables were controlled for in the design. Can you think of any other third variables? What is your overall evaluation? Can they make a causal statement?
– Before criticizing for third variables, remember that a confound is a problem with systematic variance (a true confound) and not unsystematic variance (an obscuring factor). So if you think that some people in the study might have been in a bad mood, that will not be a confound unless people in only one group were in a bad mood, and the others were not.
4. External validity: To whom or to what other contexts can the results be generalized?
– External validity addresses two issues. 1) To whom (if anyone) can the results be generalized—maybe it has good external validity (to what population of interest?) or maybe its external validity is unknown. 2) And to what other situations or settings? Remember that it’s how a sample is drawn, not how many people are in it, that determines external validity. Also, remember that in many studies, external validity is not the first priority. Your evaluation should acknowledge this and explain why.
