Identify the methodological flaw in the researcher's proposed design based on the goals of the intervention. Why is a within-subjects design impossible here, and what design should be implemented instead to resolve this issue?
Case context: A clinical psychologist is developing an experimental study to evaluate a new mindfulness-based therapy program designed to permanently reduce chronic stress levels in adults. The researcher's initial draft proposes a within-subjects design where the same group of participants has their stress measured before any intervention (as a baseline/control state), then undergoes the mindfulness program, and then has their stress measured again. The researcher argues this is ideal because it controls for individual differences.
Question: Identify the methodological flaw in the researcher's proposed design based on the goals of the intervention. Why is a within-subjects design impossible here, and what design should be implemented instead to resolve this issue?
Sample answer: The flaw is that the mindfulness program is designed to permanently reduce stress, meaning it aims to create an enduring behavioral change. If the treatment is successful, it permanently alters the participants, making it impossible for them to return to their original baseline state. Thus, they cannot serve as their own control in a subsequent condition. To resolve this, the researcher must implement a between-subjects design where different participants are assigned to the mindfulness treatment and control conditions.
Key points:
- The intervention aims to produce permanent, enduring changes in stress.
- Successful treatment permanently alters the participants' state.
- Participants cannot return to their original baseline state to serve in a subsequent control condition.
- A within-subjects design is methodologically impossible for treatments causing permanent change.
- A between-subjects design must be used instead, comparing different groups of participants.
Rubric: Grading criteria: 1. Identifies the flaw: the intervention aims for permanent/enduring change (1 point). 2. Explains the impossibility: participants are permanently altered and cannot return to baseline to serve as their own control (2 points). 3. Proposes the correct solution: a between-subjects design (1 point). 4. Explains that a between-subjects design uses different participants for treatment and control conditions (1 point).
0
1
Tags
KPU
Research Methods in Psychology - 4th American Edition @ KPU
Related
When conducting research aimed at creating an enduring behavioral change, such as evaluating the effectiveness of a new psychotherapy, why is a between-subjects design required rather than a within-subjects design?
In research aimed at creating an enduring behavioral change, such as a permanent reduction in prejudice, a within-subjects design is impossible because the participants cannot return to their original baseline state to serve as their own control.
A researcher is determining the appropriate study design for various interventions. Match each research scenario to its correct design requirement and justification based on whether the participant can return to a baseline state.
A researcher is designing a study to evaluate a new psychotherapy program aimed at creating an enduring behavioral change. Arrange the following steps in the logical order required to conclude that a between-subjects design is the only appropriate choice.
Suppose you are designing a research study to evaluate a new 'one-session' cognitive therapy intended to permanently eliminate a specific phobia. To provide a scientifically rigorous test of the therapy's efficacy while accounting for the enduring and irreversible nature of the treatment effect, which of the following experimental architectures should you construct?
Match each experimental design term to its correct description regarding research on treatments that cause permanent alterations.
To evaluate the suitability of a within-subjects design for a study on permanent behavior change, a researcher must determine whether participants can return to their original _____; if they cannot, a within-subjects design must be rejected in favor of a between-subjects design.
A researcher designs a study to test whether a one-session prejudice-reduction workshop permanently lowers participants' implicit racial bias. The plan is to have all participants complete a control bias-measurement task first, attend the workshop, and then complete the experimental bias measure afterward. The researcher argues this within-subjects approach is valid because each participant serves as their own baseline. TRUE or FALSE: This within-subjects design is appropriate for testing a treatment intended to produce a permanent reduction in bias.
When analyzing the logical impossibility of using a within-subjects design in psychotherapy research, the central problem is that participants who benefit from treatment are permanently changed and therefore can no longer serve as valid _____ in the study, because their psychological state no longer reflects the untreated condition.
A methodologist is evaluating a colleague's proposal to use a within-subjects design to test whether a new cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) program permanently eliminates social anxiety. The methodologist must build a logically sound critique of the proposal and recommend a valid alternative. Arrange the following steps in the order that produces the most complete and well-justified evaluation.
Explain why research aimed at creating enduring behavioral changes requires a between-subjects design rather than a within-subjects design. Provide the two specific examples of such treatments mentioned in the textbook context.
Identify the methodological flaw in the researcher's proposed design based on the goals of the intervention. Why is a within-subjects design impossible here, and what design should be implemented instead to resolve this issue?
A research team wants to test whether a brief cross-racial interaction session permanently reduces racial prejudice in participants. Apply your understanding of experimental designs to justify why a within-subjects design is not viable for this study.