Introduction to Psychology

In the name of Allah

The most Merciful and Beneficial

1
Introduction to Psychology

Submitted to:
Ms. Sadia Adan
Submitted By:
Malik Allah Razi
Program:
BBA (Hons)
Section:
B
Batch:
36
I.D
073605-087

2
Introduction to Psychology

Scientific Method of Psychology

Topics Page No

 Validity 4
• Types 4
 Reliability 6
• Types 8
 Reliability & Validity 10
 Generalization 14
• Hypernym and Hyponym 15
 Experiment 16
• Types 16
• Independent & Dependant Variables 17
• Confounding variable 18
• Correlation 18

3
Introduction to Psychology

Validity:

”Validity is the strength of our conclusions, inferences or propositions. More

formally, define it as the "best available approximation to the truth or falsity
of a given inference, proposition or conclusion."

Example:
Let's look at a simple example. Say we are studying the effect of strict
attendance policies on class participation. In our case, we saw that class
participation did increase after the policy was established. Each type of
validity would highlight a different aspect of the relationship between our
treatment (strict attendance policy) and our observed outcome (increased
class participation).

Types of Validity:

There are four types of validity commonly examined in social research.

1. Conclusion validity:

It asks is there a relationship between the program and the observed

outcome? Or, in our example, is there a connection between the attendance
policy and the increased participation we saw?

2. Internal Validity:

It asks if there is a relationship between the program and the outcome we

saw, is it a causal relationship? For example, did the attendance policy cause
class participation to increase?

3. Construct validity:
It is the hardest to understand in my opinion. It asks if there is there a
relationship between how I operational zed my concepts in this study to the
actual causal relationship I'm trying to study/? Or in our example, did our
treatment (attendance policy) reflect the construct of attendance, and did our
measured outcome - increased class participation - reflect the construct of

4
Introduction to Psychology

participation? Overall, we are trying to generalize our conceptualized

treatment and outcomes to broader constructs of the same concepts.

4. External validity:
It is refers to our ability to generalize the results of our study to other
settings. In our example, could we generalize our results to other
classrooms?

Threats to Internal Validity:

Confounding is a major threat to the validity of inferences made about

cause and effect, i.e. internal validity

There are three main types of threats to internal validity - single group,
multiple group and social interaction threats.

Single Group Threats apply when you are studying a single group
receiving a program or treatment. Thus, all of these threats can be greatly
reduced by adding a control group that is comparable to your program group
to your study.

A Testing Threat to internal validity is simply when the act of taking a pre-
test affects how that group does on the post-test. For example, if in your
study of class participation, you measured class participation prior to
implementing your new attendance policy, and students became forewarned
that there was about to be an emphasis on participation, they may increase it
simply as a result of involvement in the pretest measure - and thus, your
outcome could be a result of a testing threat - not your treatment.

Multiple Group Threats to internal validity involve the comparability of

the two groups in your study, and whether or not any other factor other than
your treatment causes the outcome. They also (conveniently) mirror the
single group threats to internal validity.

5
Introduction to Psychology

Reliability:

”Reliability is the consistency of your

measurement, or the degree to which an instrument
measures the same way each time it is used under
the same condition with the same subjects.”

Explanation:
In short, it is the repeatability of your
measurement. A measure is considered reliable if a person's score on the
same test given twice is similar. It is important to remember that reliability is
not measured, it is estimated.

There are two ways that reliability is usually estimated: test/retest and
internal consistency.

Test/Retest:

Test/retest is the more conservative method to estimate reliability. Simply

put, the idea behind test/retest is that you should get the same score on test 1
as you do on test 2. The three main components to this method are as
follows:
1.) Implement your measurement instrument at two separate times for each
subject;
2). Compute the correlation between the two separate measurements.
3) Assume there is no change in the underlying condition (or trait you are
trying to measure) between test 1 and test 2.

Internal Consistency:

Internal consistency estimates reliability by grouping questions in a

questionnaire that measure the same concept. For example, you could write
two sets of three questions that measure the same concept (say class
participation) and after collecting the responses, run a correlation between
those two groups of three questions to determine if your instrument is
reliably measuring that concept.

6
Introduction to Psychology

The primary difference between test/retest and internal consistency estimates

of reliability is that test/retest involves two administrations of the
measurement instrument, whereas the internal consistency method involves
only one administration of that instrument.

Split-Half Reliability:

In split-half reliability we randomly divide all items that purport to measure

the same construct into two sets. We administer the entire instrument to a
sample of people and calculate the total score for each randomly divided
half. The split-half reliability estimate, as shown in the figure, is simply the
correlation between these two total scores. In the example it is

Example:

The NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children, a highly structured

interview covering a broad range of clinically relevant symptoms and
behaviors, was administered to 242 disturbed children and their parents.
Parent and child were interviewed separately and were assessed twice at a
median interval of 9 days. Interclass correlations between symptom scores
derived from the interviews indicated that parents were generally more
reliable than children in reporting child symptoms. However, test-retest
reliabilities showed an opposite age pattern for parent and child. The
reliability of the child's report increased with age and was lower for children
aged 6-9 than those aged 10-13 and 14-18. Conversely, the reliability of the

7
Introduction to Psychology

parent's report decreased with the age of the child and was slightly higher for
children aged 6-9 than those aged 10-13 and 14-18. These findings were
interpreted in terms of children's cognitive development and age-related
shifts in parents' perceptions and awareness of their children's behavior.

Types of Reliability:

It’s not possible to calculate reliability exactly. Instead, we have to estimate

reliability, and this is always an imperfect endeavor. Here, I want to
introduce the major reliability estimators and talk about their strengths and
weaknesses.

There are four general classes of reliability estimates, each of which

estimates reliability in a different way. They are:

Inter-Rater or Inter-Observer Reliability:

Used to assess the degree to which different raters/observers give consistent

estimates of the same phenomenon.

Test-Retest Reliability:

Used to assess the consistency of a measure from one time to another.

Parallel-Forms Reliability:

Used to assess the consistency of the results of two tests constructed in the
same way from the same content domain.

Internal Consistency Reliability:

Used to assess the consistency of results across items within a test.

8
Introduction to Psychology

Explanation:

Inter-Rater or Inter-Observer Reliability:

People are notorious for their inconsistency. We are easily distractible. We

misinterpret. So how do we determine whether two observers are being
consistent in their observations? You probably should establish inter-rater
reliability outside of the context of the measurement in your study.
There are two major ways to actually estimate inter-rater reliability. If your
measurement consists of categories -- the raters are checking off which
category each observation falls in -- you can calculate the percent of
agreement between the raters.
The other major way to estimate inter-rater reliability is appropriate when
the measure is a continuous one. There, all you need to do is calculate the
correlation between the ratings of the two observers. For instance, they
might be rating the overall level of activity in a classroom on a 1-to-7 scale.
You could have them give their rating at regular time intervals (e.g., every
30 seconds). The correlation between these ratings would give you an
estimate of the reliability or consistency between the raters.

Test-Retest Reliability:

We estimate test-retest reliability when we administer the same test to the

same sample on two different occasions. This approach assumes that there is
no substantial change in the construct being measured between the two
occasions. The amount of time allowed between measures is critical. We
know that if we measure the same thing twice that the correlation between
the two observations will depend in part by how much time elapses between
the two measurement occasions. The shorter the time gap, the higher the
correlation; the longer the time gap, the lower the correlation. This is
because the two observations are related over time -- the closer in time we
get the more similar the factors that contribute to error. Since this correlation
is the test-retest estimate of reliability, you can obtain considerably different
estimates depending on the interval.

9
Introduction to Psychology

Parallel-Forms Reliability:

In parallel forms reliability you first have to create two parallel forms. One
way to accomplish this is to create a large set of questions that address the
same construct and then randomly divide the questions into two sets. You
administer both instruments to the same sample of people. The correlation
between the two parallel forms is the estimate of reliability.

Internal Consistency Reliability:

In internal consistency reliability estimation we use our single measurement

instrument administered to a group of people on one occasion to estimate
reliability. In effect we judge the reliability of the instrument by estimating
how well the items that reflect the same construct yield similar results. We
are looking at how consistent the results are for different items for the same
construct within the measure

10
Introduction to Psychology

Reliability & Validity

We often think of reliability and validity as separate ideas but, in fact, they're
related to each other. Here, I want to show you two ways you can think
about their relationship.
One of my favorite metaphors for the relationship between reliability is that
of the target. Think of the center of the target as the concept that you are
trying to measure. Imagine that for each person you are measuring, you are
taking a shot at the target. If you measure the concept perfectly for a person,
you are hitting the center of the target. If you don't, you are missing the
center. The more you are off for that person, the further you are from the
center.

The figure above shows four possible situations. In the first one, you are
hitting the target consistently, but you are missing the center of the target.
That is, you are consistently and systematically measuring the wrong value
for all respondents. This measure is reliable, but no valid (that is, it's
consistent but wrong).

The second, shows hits that are randomly spread across the target. You
seldom hit the center of the target but, on average, you are getting the right
answer for the group (but not very well for individuals). In this case, you get
a valid group estimate, but you are inconsistent. Here, you can clearly see
that reliability is directly related to the variability of your measure.

The third scenario shows a case where your hits are spread across the target
and you are consistently missing the center. Your measure in this case is
neither reliable nor valid.

Finally, we see the scenario -- you consistently hit the center of the target.
Your measure is both reliable and valid.

11
Introduction to Psychology

Another way we can think about the relationship between reliability and
validity is shown in the figure below. Here, we set up a 2x2 table. The
columns of the table indicate whether you are trying to measure the same or
different concepts. The rows show whether you are using the same or
different methods of measurement. Imagine that we have two concepts we
would like to measure, student verbal and math ability. Furthermore,
imagine that we can measure each of these in two ways. First, we can use a
written, paper-and-pencil exam. Second, we can ask the student's classroom
teacher to give us a rating of the student's ability based on their own
classroom observation.

The first cell on the upper left shows the comparison of the verbal written
test score with the verbal written test score. But how can we compare the
same measure with itself? We could do this by estimating the reliability of
the written test through a test-retest correlation, parallel forms, or an internal
consistency measure. What we are estimating in this cell is the reliability of
the measure.

The cell on the lower left shows a comparison of the verbal written measure
with the verbal teacher observation rating. Because we are trying to measure
the same concept, we are looking at convergent validity.

The cell on the upper right shows the comparison of the verbal written exam
with the math written exam. Here, we are comparing two different concepts
(verbal versus math) and so we would expect the relationship to be lower
than a comparison of the same concept with itself (e.g., verbal versus verbal

12
Introduction to Psychology

or math versus math). Thus, we are trying to discriminate between two

concepts and we would consider this discriminant validity.

Finally, we have the cell on the lower right. Here, we are comparing the
verbal written exam with the math teacher observation rating. Like the cell
on the upper right, we are also trying to compare two different concepts
(verbal versus math) and so this is a discriminant validity estimate. But here,
we are also trying to compare two different methods of measurement
(written exam versus teacher observation rating). So, we'll call this very
discriminant to indicate that we would expect the relationship in this cell to
be even lower than in the one above it.

When we look at reliability and validity in this way, we see that, rather than
being distinct, they actually form a continuum. On one end is the situation
where the concepts and methods of measurement are the same (reliability)
and on the other is the situation where concepts and methods of
measurement are different (very discriminant validity).

13
Introduction to Psychology

Generalization:
“The phenomenon of an organism's responding to all situations similar to
one in which it has been conditioned.”

Example:

Over the course of the first year of life, infants develop from being
generalized listeners, capable of discriminating both native and non-native
speech contrasts, into specialized listeners whose discrimination patterns
closely reflect the phonetic system of the native language(s). Recent work by
Maye, Werker and Gerken (2002) has proposed a statistical account for this
phenomenon, showing that infants may lose the ability to discriminate some
foreign language contrasts on the basis of their sensitivity to the statistical
distribution of sounds in the input language.

Explanation:

Generalization is a foundational element of logic and human reasoning.

Generalization posits the existence of a domain or set of elements, as well as
one or more common characteristics shared by those elements. As such, it is
the essential basis of all valid deductive inference. The process of
verification is necessary to determine whether a generalization holds true for
any given situation.

The concept of generalization has broad application in many related

disciplines, sometimes having a specialized context-specific meaning.
For any two related concepts, A and B; A is considered a generalization of
concept B if and only if:
Every instance of concept B is also an instance of concept A; and
There are instances of concept A which are not instances of concept B.

Example:

For instance, animal is a generalization of bird because every bird is an

animal, and there are animals which are not birds (dogs, for instance).

14
Introduction to Psychology

Hypernym and Hyponym:

This kind of generalization versus specialization (or particularization) is

reflected in either of the contrasting words of the word pair hypernym and
hyponym. A hypernym as a generic stands for a class or group of equally-
ranked items, such as tree does for beech and oak; or ship for cruiser and
steamer.
Whereas a hyponym is one of the items included in the generic, such as lily
and daisy are included in flower, and bird and fish in animal. A hypernym is
super ordinate to a hyponym, and a hyponym is subordinate to hypernym.

15
Introduction to Psychology

Experiment:
“An experiment is a set of observations performed in the context of solving
a particular problem or question, to retain or falsify a hypothesis or research
concerning phenomena.”

Explanation:
The experiment is a cornerstone in the empirical approach to acquiring
deeper knowledge about the physical world.

Types:
In a controlled experiment, two virtually identical experiments are
conducted. In one of them, the treatment, the factor being tested is applied.
In the other, the control, the factor being tested is not applied.

Positive Control:

A positive control is a procedure that is very similar to the actual

experimental test but which is known from previous experience to give a
positive result. The positive control confirms that the basic conditions of the
experiment were able to produce a positive result, even if none of the actual
experimental samples produce a positive result.

Negative Control:

A negative control is known to give a negative result. The negative control

demonstrates the base-line result obtained when a test does not produce a
measurable positive result; often the value of the negative control is treated
as a "background" value to be subtracted from the test sample results.

Example:

For example, in testing a drug, it is important to carefully verify that the

supposed effects of the drug are produced only by the drug itself. Doctors
achieve this with a double-blind study in a clinical trial: two (statistically)
identical groups of patients are compared, one of which receives the drug

16
Introduction to Psychology

and one of which receives a placebo. Neither the patients nor the doctor
know which group receives the real drug, which serves both to curb
researchers' bias and to isolate the effects of the drug.

Independent Variable:

“Experimental factors you manipulate: the treatment itself.”

Or
“The independent variables are those that are deliberately manipulated to
invoke a change in the dependent variables”

Dependant Variable:

“The dependent variables are those that are observed to change in response
to the independent variables.”

The dependent variable is also known as the response variable, the

regressing, the measured variable, the responding variable, the explained
variable, or the outcome variable. It is behavior observed:

In short, "if x is given, then y occurs", where x represents the independent

variables and y represents the dependent variables. Dependent and
independent variables refer to values that change in relationship to each
other.

Examples:

1. If one were to measure the influence of different quantities of fertilizer

on plant growth, the independent variable would be the amount of
fertilizer used (the changing factor of the experiment). The dependent
variables would be the growth in height and/or mass of the plant (the
factors that are influenced in the experiment) and the controlled
variables would be the type of plant, the type of fertilizer, the amount
of sunlight the plant gets, the size of the pots, etc. (the factors that
would otherwise influence the dependent variable if they were not
controlled).
2. In a study of how different doses of a drug affect the severity of
symptoms, a researcher could compare the frequency and intensity of
symptoms (the dependent variables) when different doses (the

17
Introduction to Psychology

independent variable) are administered, and attempt to draw a

conclusion.

Confounding variable:
“A confounding variable is an extraneous variable in a statistical model that
correlates (positively or negatively) with both the dependent variable and the
independent variable.”

The methodologies of scientific studies therefore need to control for these

factors to avoid what is known as a error A 'false positive' conclusion that the
dependent variables are in a causal relationship with the independent
variable. Such a relation between two observed variables is termed a
spurious relationship. Thus, confounding is a major threat to the validity of
inferences made about cause and effect, i.e. internal validity, as the observed
effects should be attributed to the confounder rather than the independent
variable.

Example:

For example, assume that a child's weight and a country's gross domestic
product (GDP) rise with time. A person carrying out an experiment could
measure weight and GDP, and conclude that a higher GDP causes children to
gain weight, or that children's weight gain boosts the GDP. However, the
confounding variable, time, was not accounted for, and is the real cause of
both rises.

Correlation:

“It is statistical measure of relationship; it revels that how closely two things
are vary together and thus how well one predict the other.”

Purpose:

The correlation is a way to measure how associated or related two variables

are. The researcher looks at things that already exist and determines if and in
what way those things are related to each other. The purpose of doing

18
Introduction to Psychology

correlations is to allow us to make a prediction about one variable based on

what we know about another variable.
For example, there is a correlation between income and education. We find
that people with higher income have more years of education. (You can also
phrase it that people with more years of education have higher income.)
When we know there is a correlation between two variables, we can make a
prediction. If we know a group’s income, we can predict their years of
education.

Direction:

There are two types or directions of correlation. In other words, there are
two patterns that correlations can follow. These are called positive
correlation and negative correlation.

Positive correlation:

“In a positive correlation, as the values of one of the variables increase, the
values of the second variable also increase. Likewise, as the value of one of
the variables decreases, the value of the other variable also decreases.”

Example:
Years of
Participant Income
Education
#1 125,000 19
#2 100,000 20
#3 40,000 16
#4 35,000 16
#5 41,000 18
#6 29,000 12
#7 35,000 14
#8 24,000 12
#9 50,000 16
#10 60,000 17

19
Introduction to Psychology

The example above of income and education is a positive correlation. People

with higher incomes also tend to have more years of education. People with
fewer years of education tend to have lower income.
This table shows some sample data. Each person reported income and years
of education.

We can make a graph, which is called a scatter plot. On the scatter plot
below, each point represents one person’s answers to questions about income
and education. The line is the best fit to those points. All positive
correlations have a scatter plot that looks like this. The line will always go in
that direction if the correlation is positive.

Negative correlation:
“In a negative correlation, as the values of one of the variables increase, the
values of the second variable decrease. Likewise, as the value of one of the
variables decreases, the value of the other variable increases.”

20
Introduction to Psychology

This is still a correlation. It is like an “inverse” correlation. The word

“negative” is a label that shows the direction of the correlation.

Example:
There is a negative correlation between TV viewing and class grades—
students who spend more time watching TV tend to have lower grades (or
phrased as students with higher grades tend to spend less time watching TV).

We can also plot the grades and TV viewing data, shown in the table below.
The scatter plot below shows the sample data from the table. The line on the
scatter plot shows what a negative correlation looks like. Any negative
correlation will have a line with that direction.

TV in hours
Participant GPA
per week
#1 3.1 14
#2 2.4 10
#3 2.0 20
#4 3.8 7
#5 2.2 25
#6 3.4 9
#7 2.9 15
#8 3.2 13
#9 3.7 4
#10 3.5 21

21
Introduction to Psychology

Disadvantage:
1. The problem that most students have with the correlation method is
remembering that correlation does not measure cause.
2. A correlation tells us that the two variables are related, but we cannot
say anything about whether one caused the other. This method does
not allow us to come to any conclusions about cause and effect.

Advantage:
An advantage of the correlation method is that we can make predictions
about things when we know about correlations. If two variables are
correlated, we can predict one based on the other. For example, we know
that SAT scores and college achievement are positively correlated. So when
college admission officials want to predict who is likely to succeed at their
schools, they will choose students with high SAT scores.

22