Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/5.1 Discussion - Overview

Hey guys, just wondering what everyone thinks of mentioning the possible limitations of the study in the overview section of the research project. I initially posted the limitations the other day (I think others may have added to it). I just discovered the discussion forums today, otherwise I would have posted here earlier! Any input is appreciated :)

Hi Zleung, Welcome! I would suggest these would be better in the limitations section, or at least be kept to being very short here.

Nice work writing this all out! Typically, statistics wouldn't appear in the discussion section, so you may want to consider either moving this to somewhere in the results section, or taking out the statistics and making it completely verbal.

Also for clarity I added the word "negative" to female r values in that section.

I think this is a good start and you are showing a good understanding of what we've found. I'd suggest this section be more like a summary of the results - so it will be a bit more brief, and (as Lauren suggests) using words rather than statistics.

The statistics and r and d value interpretations have been removed.

Hi, I read this over and it seems very clear to me, nicely done!

I added a bit to the last paragraph by explaining how we don't really have a representative sample because we haev 50 females but only 10 males who completed the survey

I added a section on the gender differences in gender diagnosticity scores. However, should I remove the mean scores seeing how this section is not supposed to contain stats?

Yes, you could remove the actual scores from this section and just note that they are similar in magnitude.

Hello!

I've made some minor edits to the entry (grammar, formality of some terms, tense). Hope that's okay. There are some parts I am having difficulty understanding, if anybody could clarify or edit these parts, that'd be great!

"was created from a correction of a number of questions that were developed by third year level university course students." --> as in, some questions were filtered out, and others were converged and refined?

No control group was used for the study, not were repeat questions given out to confirm reliability" --> there were no repeat questions?

Steph

I could add more on the limitations of the study, overall it seems a bit brief so far!

The limitations overview could be a little bit more detailed, but as an overview it should be brief and to the point. Do you think the overview needs a closing paragraph, or are the limitations sufficient?

Hi, I think it would be better to expand the limitation a bit. I had given some explanation of “untruthful self-reports”, but I am not sure whether “unrepresentative samples” indicates lack of generalizability?

I think it does indicate a lack of generalizability. Since the questionnaire was developed by and completed by the same third-year psych students, we're probably not representative of the any population (unless the population is defined as "third-year psych students UBC" haha!). That's my rationalization at least, what do you think?

And also regarding to another facet of generalizability is different conditions. Having high generalizability is the degree that they apply widely over different persons, situations, cultures, and times. For example, from our questionnaire, the reactions from an individual who encounters unfortunate events may different from the reactions from getting fired in the workplace. Or any other examples that could be added to the “limitation” part?

And the explanations for the other limitations sound great, thanks for writing that up!