Part 2: Quantitative Methods

October 9, 2006

Validity

• Face– Does it appear to measure what it purports to

measure?

• Content– Do the items cover the domain?

• Construct– Does it measure the unobservable attribute

that it purports to measure?

Validity

• Criterion– Predictive – Concurrent

• Consequential

Types of validity (cont.)

The construct

The instrument

Here the instrument samples some and only of the construct

Types of validity

The instrument

The construct

Here the instrument samples all and more of the construct

The construct

The instrument

Here the instrument fails to sample ANY of the construct

The construct

The instrument

Here the instrument samples some but not all of the construct

Perfection!

The construct and the instrument!

Reliability and Validity

In groups of 3 to 4

• Sampling– What is the target population?– What sampling procedure was used?– Do you think the sample is representative?

• Why or why not?

• Measurement– What types of reliability and validity evidence

are provided?– What else would you like to know?

Ways to Classify Instruments

• Who Provides the Information?– Themselves: Self-report data – Directly or indirectly: from the subjects of the study – From informants (people who are knowledgeable

about the subjects and provide this information)

Types of Researcher-completed Instruments

• Rating scales• Interview schedules• Tally sheets• Flowcharts

• Performance checklists

• Observation forms

Excerpt from a Behavior Rating Scale for Teachers

Instructions: For each of the behaviors listedbelow, circle the appropriate number, using the following key: 5 = Excellent, 4 = Above Average, 3 = Average, 2 = Below Average,1 = Poor.

A. Explains course material clearly.1 2 3 4 5

B. Establishes rapport with students.1 2 3 4 5

C. Asks high-level questions.1 2 3 4 5

D. Varies class activities.1 2 3 4 5

Excerpt from a Graphic Rating Scale

Instructions: Indicate the quality of the student’s participationin the following class activities by placing an X anywhere alongeach line.

AlwaysFrequently Occasionally Seldom Never

1. Listens to teacher’s instructions.

Always Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never

2. Listens to the opinions of other students.

Always Frequently Occasionally Seldom Never

3. Offers own opinions in class discussions.

Sample Observation Form

Discussion Analysis Tally Sheet

Performance Checklist Noting Student Actions

Types of Subject-completed Instruments

• Questionnaires• Self-checklists• Attitude scales• Personality

inventories

• Achievement/aptitude tests

• Performance tests• Projective devices

Example of a Self-Checklist

Example of Items from a Likert Scale

Example of the Semantic Differential

Pictorial Attitude Scale for Use with Young Children

Sample Items from a Personality Inventory

Sample Items from an Achievement Test

Sample Item from an Aptitude Test

Sample Items from an Intelligence Test

Item Formats

• Questions used in a subject-completed instrument can take many forms but are classified as either selection or supply items.

• Examples of selection items are:• True-false items

• Matching items

• Multiple choice items

• Interpretive exercises

• Examples of supply items are:• Short answer items

• Essay questions

Norm-Referenced vs. Criterion-Referenced Instruments

• All derived scores give meaning to individual scores by comparing them to the scores of a group.

• The group used to determine derived scores is called the norm group and the instruments that provide such scores are referred to as norm-referenced instruments.

• An alternative to the use of achievement or performance instruments is to use a criterion-referenced test.

• This is based on a specific goal or target (criterion) for each learner to achieve.

• The difference between the two tests is that the criterion referenced tests focus more directly on instruction.

Experimental Research

The (Never-Ending) Search for Causation

• Establishing causation among variables :

» Produces increased understanding of those variables

» Results in the ability to manipulate conditions in order

to produce desired changes

Experimental Research

• Can demonstrate cause-and-effect very convincingly

• Very stringent research design requirements

• Experimental design requires:

» Random assignment to groups (experimental and

control)

» Independent treatment variable that can be applied to

the experimental group

» Dependent variable that can be measured in all groups

Quasi-Experimental Research

• Used in place of experimental research when random

assignment to groups is not feasible

• Otherwise, very similar to true experimental research

Fundamentals of Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research

• Cause and effect:

» Incorporates a temporal element—the cause is a

condition that exists prior to the effect; effect is a

condition that occurs after the cause

» There exists a “logical connection”—cause-and-effect

is demonstrated when manipulation of the independent

variable results in differences in the dependent variable

(as evidenced by comparing the experimental group to

the control group)

What Aids Our Causal Arguments?

• Theory– "causes certainly are connected to effects; but this is because our

theories connect them, not because the world is held together by cosmic glue. The world may be glued together by imponderables, but that is irrelevant for understanding causal explanation." Hanson, 1958.

• Temporal Elements

• Design– "No causation without manipulation" Rubin &

Holland

Fundamentals of Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research

• Random selection and random assignment :

» Distinguish between “selection” and “assignment”

» Random selection helps to assure population validity

» If you incorporate random assignment

Experimental research

» If you do not use random assignmentQuasi-experimental research

Fundamentals of Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research (cont’d.)

• When to use experimental research design :

» If you strongly suspect a cause-and-effect relationship

exists between two conditions, and

» The independent variable can be introduced to

participants and can be manipulated, and

» The resulting dependent variable can be measured for

all participants

Internal and External Validity

• “Validity of research” refers to the degree to which the

conclusions are accurate and generalizable

• Both experimental and quasi-experimental research are

subject to threats to validity

• If threats are not controlled for, they may introduce error

into the study, which will lead to misleading conclusions

Threats to External Validity

• External validity—extent to which the results can be

generalized to other groups or settings

» Population validity—degree of similarity among

sample used, population from which it came, and target

population

» Ecological validity—physical or emotional situation or

setting that may have been unique to the experiment

» If the treatment effects can be obtained only under a limited

set of conditions or only by the original researcher the findings

have low ecological validity.

Threats to External Validity

• Selection bias – if sample is biased you cannot generalize to the

population.• Reactive effects

– Experimental setting - differs from natural setting.– Testing – pretest influences how subjects respond to

the treatment.• Multiple-treatment inference

– If the subjects are exposed to more than one treatment, then the findings could only be generalized to individuals exposed to the same treatments in the same order of presentation.

Threats to Internal Validity

• Internal validity—extent to which differences on the

dependent variable are a direct result of the manipulation

of the independent variable» History—when factors other than treatment can exert influence

over the results; problematic over time

» Maturation—when changes occur in dependent variable that may be due to natural developmental changes; problematic over time

» Testing—pretest may give clues to treatment or posttest and may result in improved posttest scores

» Instrumentation – Nature of outcome measure has changed.

Threats to Internal Validity (cont’d.)

» Regression – Tendency of extreme scores to be nearer to the mean at retest

» Differential selection of participants—participants are not selected/assigned randomly

» Attrition (mortality)—loss of participants

» Experimental treatment diffusion – Control conditions receive experimental treatment.

Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research Designs

• Commonly used experimental design notation :

» X1 = treatment group

» X2 = control/comparison group

» O = observation (pretest, posttest, etc.)

» R = random assignment

Common Experimental Designs

• Single-group pretest-treatment-posttest design:

O X O

» Technically, a pre-experimental design (only one

group; therefore, no random assignment exists)

» Overall, a weak design

»Why?

Common Experimental Designs (cont’d.)

• Two-group treatment-posttest-only design:

R X1 O

R X2 O

» Here, we have random assignment to experimental,

control groups

» A better design, but still weak—cannot be sure that

groups were equivalent to begin with

Common Experimental Designs (cont’d.)

• Two-group pretest-treatment-posttest design:

R O X1 O

R O X2 O

» A substantially improved design—previously

identified errors have been reduced

Common Experimental Designs (cont’d.)

• Solomon four-group design:

R O X1 O

R O X2 O

R X1 O

R X2 O

» A much improved design—how??

» One serious drawback—requires twice as many

participants

Common Experimental Designs (cont’d.)

• Factorial designs:

R O X1 O

R O X2 O

R O X1 O

R O X2 O

» Incorporates two or more factors

» Enables researcher to detect differential differences (effects apparent only on certain combinations of levels of independent variables)

Common Experimental Designs (cont’d.)

• Single-participant measurement-treatment-measurement designs:

O O O | X O X O | O O O

» Purpose is to monitor effects on one subject

» Results can be generalized only with great caution

Common Quasi-Experimental Designs

• Posttest-only design with nonequivalent groups:

X1 O

X2 O

» Uses two groups from same population

» Questions must be addressed regarding equivalency of groups prior to introduction of treatment

Common Quasi-Experimental Designs (cont’d.)

• Pretest-posttest design with nonequivalent groups:

O X1 O

O X2 O

» A stronger design—pretest may be used to establish

group equivalency

Similarities Between Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Research

• Cause-and-effect relationship is hypothesized

• Participants are randomly assigned (experimental) or

nonrandomly assigned (quasi-experimental)

• Application of an experimental treatment by researcher

• Following the treatment, all participants are measured on

the dependent variable

• Data are usually quantitative and analyzed by looking for

significant differences on the dependent variable