To check the reliability of a finding, one must replicate the research. That means to repeat the research in all its important details.
What is replication? Why is replication "vital to science"? How are operational definitions helpful? Replication is vital to science. It helps make science a self-correcting system. Operational definitions are critically important in aiding replication. An operational definition spells out exactly how to measure something. To replicate an experiment, one must know how the original researcher performed measurements. Hence operational definitions must be known precisely, to replicate research.
If a replication fails, that does not imply somebody lied or cheated. Most scientists are honest. Most failures of replication are due to differences in how the research was performed. Possible differences include: the subjects involved Nationality? Volunteers or paid subjects? Seemingly minor details could influence the outcome of an experiment. Replication failures may also expose what statisticians call a Type 1 error, a finding of statistical significance that is due to random error or luck of the draw.
If an effect cannot be repeated reliably, scientists need to find out about it. That is why replications are performed. Indeed, the word prove means test as in "proving ground" which is a place where automobiles are tested.
A finding cannot be accepted as true until it is "proven" in a variety of circumstances. Positive findings about ESP are often reported, but so far they always disappear when somebody skeptical about ESP tries to replicate them. The same thing can happen in education and health research. That is why double- blind research is the gold standard of science. It prevents expectations from altering the outcome of research, as we will discuss presently. When proper controls such as double-blind design are used, researchers may be unable to repeat a finding first reported by enthusiasts.
Without going into the complexities of how one measures each of these things, we will just say that it is relatively easy to do so, and that these measures have often been used to index the anxiety level of participants in studies. With modern telemetry, it is even possible to monitor many of these physiological responses while the person is carrying out everyday activities in his or her natural environment. Most of the people who were obviously nervous about giving a talk in school somehow got through the talks, but a few quit in the middle, sometimes even leaving the room.
This is yet another indicator of anxiety--in this case, the behavior of fleeing the situation. We do not see it often in classroom situations, but people who are anxious of snakes will often run away or at least step back from the object of their fear. Furthermore, we often see avoidance of situations that produce anxiety. Someone who has been very anxious giving talks in public may chose to only take classes that do not require a presentation.
He or she may even chose jobs later that are unlikely to require a presentation, even though it may mean making considerably less or having a less prestigious job.
So behavior, both escape and avoidance, is yet another indicator of anxiety. We have outlined three separate strategies for operationally defining anxiety. They include 1 asking people how anxious they are feeling, 2 measuring their physiological response, and 3 observing their behavior, especially their escape and avoidance behavior.
The natural question for most students is which of these is the BEST measure of anxiety. In essence, which of the measures captures true anxiety most precisely. The answer to this question for anxiety is often frustrating to students, but reflects the complex reality of human emotions. The answer is "It depends. If we are anxious and we don't want people to know that we are anxious, we can always lie about how we feel, provided our anxiety is not so obvious that everyone can see signs of it.
We can also stay in situations in spite of intense anxiety to avoid losing face or to do something that we feel is critical. Many nervous parents have spoken up at PTO meetings, because they thought it was important to the well being of their children.
But physiological measures also have their problems. The heart rate will indeed go up when we are anxious, but it also goes up for lots of other reasons as well. Walk up a flight of stairs and your heart rate will have increased several beats a minute to meet the aerobic demand. Your palms will sweat from nervousness, but they also sweat, along with the rest of your body, when you are hot. The same is true of face flushing. Your muscles will tighten when nervous, but they also tighten when you are expecting to act or are engaged in physical action.
So none of our measures of anxiety is ideal. If none of our measures of anxiety is ideal, which one should we use. The best answer is "as many as we can. For example, people can avoid a situation without showing visible signs of anxiety, but the avoidance is a strong indicator of their feeling about the situation. Even though there may be little physiological arousal and they may claim to not be anxious, their avoidance is telling another story.
The validity of that other story can often be confirmed if the person is required to face what they have been avoiding. Looking at it from another perspective, we often see people with considerable anxiety, as measured by their physiological responses, performing all of the things required of them. Golfers might calmly sink a foot putt to win a tournament, even though their heart might be racing and their palms are dripping wet.
So are they anxious or not? Scientifically, the fact that these various measures of anxiety do not always agree has led to a much more thorough understanding of anxiety. We now know that it is not a single construct, but rather represents a complex collection of responses, and that the pattern that we will see will depend on the situation that the person is in.
We would never have been able to recognize that if we had not operationally defined anxiety in several different ways and used all of those various definitions in our research studies. Civic responsibility seems like a clear construct. People who are civic-minded are likely to do what is expected of them by society. But what is it that is expected of a responsible citizen? Do responsible citizens vote regularly? Do they agree to serve on juries? Do they donate time to the Scouts or Little League baseball?
Do they drive within the speed limit? Do they work to help solve world hunger? Do they pay all the taxes that they owe? Must they do all of these things in order to be a responsible citizen, or would a certain subset of these activities be sufficient? Should some of these activities be considered mandatory of responsible citizens, like voting for example?
Would the late Harry Chapin, a well known song writer and performer, be considered a responsible citizen? He gave as many as a hundred benefit concerts a year to combat world hunger, but by most accounts drove like a maniac, collecting frequent speeding tickets. His reckless driving eventually took his life in a fiery crash on the Long Island Expressway. This rather clear construct suddenly gets fuzzy when you start wondering about how to measure it? What behaviors should be included?
What should be excluded? Do some behaviors bias you against certain people. For example, would doctors who try to avoid jury duty, because of the demands of caring for their patients, be responsible or irresponsible for their decision? Would people who avoid activities, because they are uncomfortable around large groups of people, appear to be irresponsible because they do not engage in important civic activities?
These terms are quite vague. In order to provide an operational definition of this variable, you have to clearly describe the two conditions of your experiment see below for examples. These are the variables being measured in experiments.
In order to write an operational definition you must write exactly how you plan on measuring these variables. Imagine I was conducting an experiment that was trialling the effectiveness of a drug treatment on PTSD symptoms. The drug therapy is my independent variable and PTSD symptoms is my dependent variable. In order to write an operational definition of the IV I must describe the two conditions of my experiment.
It might look something like this:. Remember, we want our studies to be easily replicated, so others have to be able to follow our methodology.
It could look like this:.
0コメント