If earlier psychology was more abstract knowledge that was obtained in scientific laboratories and taught at universities, today its applied branches are developing at a very rapid pace. Experiments aimed at solving practical problems and life problems are widely used.
Experimental psychology is a general methodological approach. It is a scientific discipline that carries out various types of research into the psyche through experimental methods. It became the first source of psychological diagnosis.
The concept of psychodiagnostics
Psychodiagnostics is an applied discipline of psychology that studies and uses for practical purposes methods of classification, ranking and measurement of psychophysiological and psychological characteristics of people.
Its main methods are:
- experiment;
- observation;
- survey;
- testing.
Psychometric properties of psychodiagnostic methods
These include reliability, validity and representativeness.
The reliability of the methodology is a quantitative and statistical indicator of the stability of the results, which is measured using various correlation coefficients. It, however, does not answer the question of what mental property is being measured.
This information can be obtained by examining the validity indicator. It is also measured using correlation coefficients, but more theoretical and practical considerations are taken into account.
In psychology, validity is the compliance with the objectives of the developed methods and the results of their research.
Its important feature is the impossibility of establishing and using this evidence once as the final argument “for” the quality of a technique or experiment. By considering the compliance of the research results with the stated objectives, one can judge the degree of validity. But it is not measured in any conventional units.
The test of representativeness is often reduced to the normal distribution of test scores. But this can be considered a special case, a sufficient condition, but not necessary.
Today, psychometric properties are considered the main sign of scientific validity. In global psychodiagnostics, this is a prerequisite for obtaining a certificate from national testing commissions as a technique suitable for practical use.
The essence of the concept of “validity”
Definition 1
Validity is a complex characteristic of a technique, which includes information about the area of the phenomena being studied and the representativeness of the diagnostic procedure in relation to them.
This concept refers to what the technique measures and how well it does it. Those tests that do not have validity are not suitable for practical use.
The level of validity is its coefficient.
The validity of the test is influenced by systematic factors that introduce distortions into the results. These include other mental properties that prevent the property at which the test is aimed from manifesting itself in the test results.
For example, it is necessary to measure learning potential, but execution time is strictly limited, and it is impossible to correct a mistake. Thus, the desired mental property will be mixed with another – “stress resistance”. Those who have high stress tolerance will perform better on the test. This is where the effect of systematic distortion comes into play. Hence, there is no single and universal approach to determining validity.
Finished works on a similar topic
- Course work External validity and types of generalizations outside the research situation 410 rub.
- Abstract External validity and types of generalizations outside the research situation RUB 250.
- Test: External validity and types of generalizations outside the research situation 200 rub.
Receive completed work or specialist advice on your educational project Find out the cost
Based on which aspect of validity will be considered, the appropriate methods of evidence will be used.
Note 1
The technique has as much validity as there are criteria.
In the first understanding, validity refers to the methodology itself - this is the validity of the measuring instrument, and the test is called theoretical validation. The second understanding relates not so much to the methodology as to the purpose of its use - this is pragmatic validation.
To use psychodiagnostic techniques for practical purposes, they must be tested against a number of formal criteria, which are the main element of the techniques and prove their effectiveness and high quality.
The main evaluation criteria are reliability and validity.
The validity criterion is a source of information about the mental property being measured; it does not depend on the test and is external in relation to it. We can talk about the validity of a test only when its results are comparable with the source of truth about the property being measured, i.e. with criterion.
Too lazy to read?
Ask a question to the experts and get an answer within 15 minutes!
Ask a Question
In practice, the pragmatic criterion is often used as a criterion of validity, which is an obvious sign exhibited by the test subject regardless of the quality being studied. For example, data on the performance of various tasks, control tests, and data obtained using other methods whose validity has been proven.
Specifics and objectives of a psychological experiment
An experiment in psychology is carried out with the aim of obtaining new scientific information by studying the life activity of the subject.
The specifics are that:
- information about the activity of the psyche can be obtained only based on its manifestations (for example, in the form of certain behavior), because as a construct it cannot be observed objectively;
- it is impossible to single out any one of the mental processes by studying them, since the impact always occurs on the psyche as a whole;
- There is an active interaction between the subject and the experimenter (in research with people and, for example, with primates), which makes instruction necessary (for a more accurate understanding of the requirements).
There are 3 types of variables in the experiment:
- independent;
- dependent;
- additional (external).
The general task of a psychological experiment is to establish the existence of connections between them.
The concept of validity is the cornerstone here. It gives scientists some confidence that they measured what they wanted. Taking many measures to comply with all its types, it is still impossible to be absolutely sure of following them to the end due to the unattainability of a perfect experiment.
Question 51. Factors of external and internal validity of the experiment.
⇐ PreviousPage 11 of 15Next ⇒
An experiment is a method of studying a phenomenon under controlled conditions. Differs from observation by active interaction with the object being studied.
Validity is a measure of the extent to which the research methodology and results correspond to the stated objectives.
Internal validity is a type of validity, the degree of influence of the independent variable on the dependent variable.
External validity is a type of validity that determines the extent to which the results of a particular study can be extended to the entire class of similar situations/phenomena/objects.
Factors affecting the internal validity of an experiment : • Change over time
(dependence of subjects and the environment on the time of day, seasons, changes in the person himself - aging, fatigue and dissipation of attention during long-term studies, changes in the motivation of the subjects and the experimenter, etc.; cf. Natural development).
The need for double-checking - perhaps today's picture will not be identical to the real picture. • Sequence effect
– the influence of one experiment on the next;
the influence of one experimental condition on the next one. • Rosenthal
(Pygmalion) effect.
It lies in the influence of the experimenter’s biases on the result of the study. The influence of the researcher's biases, expectations, and previous experiences on the results of the study. It can manifest itself at any stage of research and in any science: both during the experimental procedure, and when processing the results, and when interpreting the results of the study, etc. It is impossible to study those groups towards which there are certain prejudices. • Hawthorne effect
- works when the subject tries to please the experimenter.
These are conditions in which novelty, interest in an experiment, or increased attention to a given issue lead to a distorted, often overly favorable result. Participants in the experiment act differently, more diligently, than usual, only because of the awareness that they are involved in the experiment. • Placebo effect.
Placebo is a physiologically inert substance used as a medicine, the positive therapeutic effect of which is associated with the subconscious psychological expectation of the patient.
A placebo is unable to act directly on the conditions for which the drug is prescribed. The term placebo effect refers to the very phenomenon of non-drug effects, not just a drug, but, for example, radiation (sometimes they use different “flashing” devices, even “laser therapy”, etc.). Checking the effectiveness of certain methods of psychotherapy. • The audience effect
is the influence of an outside presence on human behavior.
• The first impression effect
is the influence of the opinion about a person that the subject formed in the first minutes of the first meeting on a further assessment of the activities and personality of this person.
• The Barnum effect
is a general observation that people rate extremely highly the accuracy of descriptions of their personality that they assume are tailor-made for them, but which are actually vague and general enough to apply just as well to others. to many other people. Many scientists partially explain the phenomenon of the widespread popularity of astrological horoscopes, palmistry and various pseudosciences with the Barnum effect. The less specifics, the more faith. People tend to accept the most general descriptions as truth.
Factors influencing the external validity of an experiment:
1. Interaction of test results:
The control test scores of subjects who took the pretest may be considered unrepresentative of the population that did not take the pretest because the pretest in some way increased the subjects' sensitivity to the independent variable.
2. Interaction between selection and experimentation:
As a result of inconsistent selection, an experimental group may be formed that responds to the independent variable differently than the general population.
3. Reactive effects of the experimental setting:
experimental conditions may not be representative of environmental conditions.
4. Interference of several studies:
When more than one study is carried out simultaneously, changes may occur that differ from those that would occur if each study were carried out separately.
5. Irrelevant measurement data:
all measurements reflect diverse aspects of the surrounding reality, which may include irrelevant components that create the appearance of changes in the absence of such or mask real changes.
6. Irrelevant study replications:
When the independent variables are complex events (such as a visit to prison in the “deterrence” example, or higher education), researchers may not know which aspect of the event is causing the change in the subjects of the study and mistakenly omit relevant aspect of the independent variable in all experimental presentations.
Question 52. Crowd theories by G. Tarde and G. Le Bon.
“Under certain specific circumstances... a crowd of people exhibits new characteristics quite different from the characteristics of the individuals of which the crowd is composed. The feelings and ideas of all those gathered take on a single direction, and their conscious personalities dissolve in the crowd, Le Bon wrote in one of his works. “The crowd is like leaves lifted by a hurricane and blown in different directions and then falling to the ground.”
He believed that the crowd lives an independent life. At the same time, the number of people goes into a qualitatively different mental and intellectual state, in which the racial, unconscious common among people dominates over individual abilities. The crowd has a kind of “common mind”, creating a single state of mind that can inspire people to both heroic and barbaric actions, depending on the situation. The individual dissolves in the crowd, regardless of the level of intelligence, culture, or wealth.
The main characteristics of a crowd, according to the theory, are as follows:
— In a crowd, everyone is equalized, people are reduced to the same level of mental manifestations and behavior. Le Bon explains this phenomenon with the idea of the collective unconscious: in a crowd, people are guided only by unconscious ideas that are the same for everyone.
— The crowd is intellectually much lower than the individuals that compose it, it is prone to quickly switching attention from one object to another, easily and uncritically accepts even the most fantastic rumors and is influenced by appeals and slogans. She blindly obeys leaders whose power and prestige have an almost magical effect on her.
— A person in a crowd is capable of committing any acts of violence, cruelty, vandalism, which under normal conditions seem unthinkable to him. “Whoever the individuals who make up a crowd may be, no matter how similar or dissimilar they may be in their way of life, their characters, their occupations or their minds, the fact of their transformation into a crowd puts them at the mercy of a kind of collective mind that makes them feel, think and act in a way that is completely different from their actions, feelings and how each individual felt, thought and acted if they were alone,” Le Bon noted.
— The crowd is characterized by increased emotionality and impulsiveness. In a crowd, there is such a socio-psychological phenomenon as emotional resonance. At the same time, people not only coexist with each other, but “infect” those around them with their emotions. At the same time, crowd participants, exchanging emotional charges, gradually heat up the general mood to such an extent that an emotional explosion occurs, which is difficult to control by consciousness.
Le Bon identifies three main factors due to which these properties of the crowd are formed.
The first is anonymity:
The individual disappears in the crowd. There are no names or social statuses here, there is only “citizen in a coat”, “woman in a hat”, etc. “The crowd,” as Le Bon wrote, “becomes anonymous and, because of this, irresponsible; the sense of responsibility, which always restrains the individual, disappears completely.”
On the one hand, participation in a crowd of a significant number of people creates in an individual a feeling of strength, power, and invincibility; on the other hand, the facelessness and “addresslessness” of the crowd makes an individual anonymous, and this leads to a feeling of personal irresponsibility: everyone believes that any actions will be attributed to the crowd, and not to him personally.
The second factor, as defined by Le Bon, is “contagion”:
Infection here refers to the spread of the mental state of some people to others.
According to the theory, general mood and imagination spread like an infection through three mechanisms:
- imitation - the desire of one person to imitate the majority, to do what the rest are doing;
- suggestibility - a state in which an individual becomes more receptive to images, goals and assumptions emanating from others;
- chain reaction - the process by which the emotions of others cause the same feelings in an individual, which in turn further strengthens the feelings of others in the form of feedback.
Lebon identifies suggestibility as a separate factor influencing the properties of the crowd.
This, in his opinion, is the most important mechanism, since it directs the behavior of the crowd. The consequence of its influence is that people uncritically perceive any motivations and calls to action and are capable of committing actions that are in complete contradiction with their consciousness, character and habits.
The crowd accepts or rejects any instilled opinion, idea or belief entirely and treats them either as absolute truths or as absolute errors.
⇐ Previous11Next ⇒
Recommended pages:
Use the site search:
Theoretical and pragmatic validation
Validation is a test of the validity of a method. Divided into theoretical and pragmatic.
Theoretical validation refers to the technique itself. The researcher is interested in the property that is being measured.
Pragmatic validation refers to the purpose of using a technique. The emphasis is on demonstrating that what the technique measures is related to specific areas of practice.
What is the validity of the methodology?
What is the validity of the methodology? This is an indicator that indicates whether the technique in question is studying the quality or characteristic for which it is intended. In this case, the emphasis is placed on the fact that the subject who is being tested may see and characterize himself differently. This is why the results do not always take into account the opinions of people who may not notice certain characteristics.
Validation is called checking the validity of a methodology. To determine the effectiveness, efficiency, and practicality of the methodology used, an external independent indicator is used - quality that is observed in everyday life. There are 4 types of external indicators:
- The performance criterion is the time spent, the amount of work, the level of academic performance, the growth of professional skills, etc.
- Subjective criteria are the opinion, views, preference, attitude of the subject towards someone or something. Questionnaires, interviews, questionnaires are used here.
- Physiological criteria - the influence of the external world on the human psyche and body. Here the pulse, breathing rate, symptoms of fatigue, etc. are measured.
- The criterion of randomness - is it possible, for example, to select individuals who are not prone to accidents? Studying the impact of a specific case.
The theoretical approach to measuring the validity of methods makes it possible to recognize whether a technology actually studies the quality for which it was intended.
Validity is also determined by the occurrence of the quality being studied. It’s good if it is common, which makes the technique necessary and useful. Ethical and cultural changes in society also become important.
Validity classification
In experimental psychology, validity is one of the fundamental concepts.
It includes a huge amount of all kinds of information about the test. In simple terms, it indicates what is being measured and how well. The methods of obtaining and categories of this information form the types of validity. It is divided into 4 main types:
- internal;
- external;
- operational;
- constructive.
Also in experimental psychology, types of validity are used:
- differential;
- incremental;
- environmental.
Psychodiagnostics uses a different classification. This is where validity happens:
1.Constructive. Divided by:
- convergent;
- divergent.
2. Criteria (empirical). Divided by:
- current;
- prognostic;
- retrospective.
3. Meaningful.
Basic type of validity: internal
It is considered interdisciplinary, since it is actively used in experimental psychology and other sciences. A type of validity that shows how much an independent variable influences a dependent variable. To ensure this, it is necessary to control all important external factors.
The higher the likelihood that the dependent variable will change from the independent variable and not from some other factors, the higher the internal validity of the study. However, it is impossible to say with complete confidence that it is observed in science, especially in psychology. Therefore, in any psychological experiment, scientists can only try to minimize various reasons that pose a threat to internal validity.
An example of a violation of internal validity[ | ]
Let's say we want to test a drug that will make people taller. Let's say for our research we select 13-year-old teenagers as test subjects, measure their height, and give them medicine. Two years later, we return to the now 15-year-old children and record their current growth. There is no doubt that they became taller, but there is also no doubt that we cannot conclude from this that the growth effect was caused by the drug, since we did not take into account the natural processes of maturation in our theoretical experiment. Here, internal validity is violated in the following way: we did not take into account the influence of other (in this case obvious) factors that were incidental to our research, whereas they should have been taken into account.
Threats
The influence of the following points should be taken into account and neutralized as much as possible:
- Statistical regression – groups are selected based on “extreme” indicators.
- Background – certain events occurring between two dimensions along with experimental influence.
- Changes in subjects during natural development that are a consequence of the passage of time and are not associated with any events (for example, growing up).
- Testing is the influence on the results of repeated testing of already completed tasks that are used for measurement.
- Selection of subjects - a recurring error in the results occurs due to the non-equivalence of the groups in composition.
- Attrition during the experiment - subjects drop out unevenly from the compared groups.
- Instrumentation error - variations in results may be caused by instability of the measuring instrument.
- The interaction of several of these factors leads to an erroneous perception of the effect of the experimental variable.
Main type of validity: external
It is characterized by the degree of correspondence of the results obtained in the experiment to the most primitive life situation taken for research. Additional variables influence external validity. The possibility of generalizing conclusions and transferring experimental results from laboratory conditions to real ones to the entire category of similar objects and phenomena depends on it.
Specialists working in applied fields: organizational, clinical and educational psychology are more concerned about external validity. They often resort to setting up experiments close to reality to solve everyday problems.
It is impossible to talk about absolute compliance with external validity, like any other. Therefore, scientists speak only about the degree of its compliance.
Research may use other methods in addition to experimental research (for example, observation) to increase the degree of external validity.
Threats
First of all, this includes effects that are associated with the characteristics of the object under study:
- emotional reaction to situations;
- ability to learn;
- presence of memory.
The main reasons that threaten external validity are the influence of:
- Pre-testing - when the susceptibility of subjects to experimental influence decreases or increases under its influence.
- The conditions for conducting research are when they cause a reaction to the experiment in the subject.
- Interaction between the selection of subjects and the experimental factor.
- Superposition of experimental treatments—especially refers to single-group study designs where the same subjects are exposed to the same experimental treatments.
If situations that are far from real life, too laboratory, are selected for experiments, external validity is at risk. The generality of conclusions inevitably decreases when exogenous variables are fixed.
Types of validity of research methods
The choice of scientific research methods depends on a number of facts: the field of science (humanities or applied), the need to carry out analysis with a calculation part or a simple comparison of facts, the availability of specific data for analysis, etc.
It should be noted that in one study the chosen method may be valid, but in another it may be completely ineffective. Therefore, the validity of the chosen methodology should be assessed within the framework of a specific scientific work, and not in comparison with other studies.
In science, there are several types of validity of research methods:
Types of validity
- Theoretical validity.
This type is determined by comparing indicators calculated using the selected methodology with similar indicators calculated using another method. It is important that the calculated parameters are theoretically dependent, that is, they evaluate the same subject, take into account the same factors or similar influencing factors, and demonstrate theoretical dependence (that is, they belong to a specific object or judgment).
This indicator is determined using the correlation of the same indicator or property, calculated using different research methods. At the same time, compliance is important: both methods must be associated with the same hypothesis or theory.
- Empirical validity.
This criterion is calculated or manifested through the action of the experimental-logical research method. In particular, it is reflected in the reactions, thinking, emotions, and behavior of the tested objects. This method is more applicable in the psychological field, when it is necessary to assess the reaction or psychological state of a person in a specific situation.
The empirical validity of research methods will be higher when the chosen methodology demonstrates the fact that the data obtained correspond to the real data of the subject, that is, during a “pure” or “natural” experiment: when the behavior of the object within the framework of the study completely coincides with the behavior in real life. life.
Any difficulties?
Need teacher help?
We are always happy to help you!
master's theses
- External validity.
This criterion has similarities with empirical validity. Its peculiarity is that it is important to establish a connection between the specific parameters of the chosen research method with the external manifestations of the subject (behavior) in real life.
- Internal validity.
This indicator is manifested in the fact that the chosen methodology allows you to achieve the stated goal of the study, proves or disproves the effectiveness of the hypothesis put forward. In fact, internal validity demonstrates the consistency of the research methodology with its content. The validity of the chosen method is higher when it shows that all coefficients and actions measure exactly what is required, linking these manifestations with external signs of the problem (its symptoms).
Main types: operational and constructive
Allows you to evaluate the substantive planning of the study.
Operational validity shows the consistency of the methods and experimental design with the hypothesis being tested. Determines the degree of compliance of the statements under study with the theoretical provisions underlying the organization and conduct of this experiment. Its assessment is related to the success of the transition from the formulation of hypotheses to the choice of methodology.
Construct validity involves looking for factors that explain test-taking behavior. Associated with a theoretical construct in itself. It is part of operational validity.
The first step is to describe as completely as possible the construct that will be measured. This is done by formulating hypotheses about it that prescribe what it may or may not correlate with. These hypotheses are then tested.
These 2 types are a special case of external validity.
Other types of validity
In addition to the main ones, there are also other types that correspond to other stages of experimental research. There are more than a dozen types of validity, which in many ways, including threats, are similar to the main ones. Only the nature of their violation changes. Let's briefly look at some of them.
Ecological - shows how well the experimental conditions correspond to the reality being studied. A high degree of ecological validity is quite difficult to maintain in laboratory studies, and it is not always necessary. And in field experiments it naturally reaches a maximum.
Diagnostic (competitive) – reflects the correspondence of the test indicators to the state of the psychological characteristics of the subject at the time of the study.
Prognostic – characterizes the degree of statistical reliability and validity of the development of the psychological feature that is being studied in the future.
Empirical - this concept combines the previous 2. The general approach to their determination is emphasized, carried out by statistically correlating test scores (grades) and an indicator based on an external criterion.
Validity of psychological tests
The validity of psychological tests reflects the correspondence of their results to the essence of the measured psychological phenomena. For example, to what extent does the result of an aggressiveness test reflect the real level of aggressiveness of the respondent.
There are two main ways to determine the validity of psychological tests.
The first way to determine the validity of a psychological test involves correlating the test results with similar indicators of other tests. For example, to check the validity of a self-esteem test, you can do the following:
- conduct testing of subjects using a new test;
- identify the self-esteem of subjects on another test (assuming that it is valid);
- calculate the correlation of self-esteem indicators using two psychodiagnostic methods;
- a statistically significant correlation will give grounds to talk about the validity of the new test.
This method allows us to identify the so-called construct validity. It reflects the correspondence of the identified psychological indicator to the psychological construct.
The second way to determine the validity of a psychological test involves correlating the test results with external criteria. This validity is called criterion validity of a psychological test.
For example, an indicator of the criterion validity of a test of propensity for deviant behavior can be the actual number of offenses of a teenager. In relation to the test of achievement motivation, the indicator of criterion validity can be the success of performing a particular activity.
The relativity of dividing validity into types
There is no universal approach to characterizing validity. To validate certain types of psychodiagnostic procedures and tests, various types are used. The information that is included in its complex can be described or assessed using the validity coefficient quantitatively and qualitatively. But in general, the validity of the methodology is difficult to measure - it can only be judged - due to its complexity, complexity, and situationality in relation to the specific conditions of its application.
Only as a result of gaining experience with tests can real validity be revealed, but it changes over time due to the obsolescence of methods. This is due to changes in social norms, patterns of behavior, and requirements for professions. That is why it is necessary to periodically monitor the validity of methods.
