Descriptive research in psychological science
Gender bias was seen in the selection of participants. Defines well the difference between systemizing and empathizing to the reader and how this connects to the topic. Mentions a lot on a wide study on this field, could have cited it in the statements to convey it to the reader. Good point on how systemization cannot predict human behavior or emotions as ‘people are not rule-governed [ CITATION Sim151 l 16393 ]. The concept of ‘mind blind’ and ‘system blind’ explains how the E-S theory not only categorizes a person as empathetic or as systematic and how the dominance of one lead to the absence of the other, here the research relies upon self-reporting on building the data (Schwarz, 1999). The research quantifies the data which makes it easier for the reader to understand the data quickly than to use a qualitative method [ CITATION Nun67 l 16393 ]. The research lacked communication as it does not mention much about the previous studies done in the field[ CITATION Nun67 l 16393 ], and could have included a study on high functioning autistic individuals to make the reader to understand the topic more.
As this is an ability test factors such as guess working could have been included in the study [ CITATION Kli93 l 16393 ], as participants might as well just assign any score as there are 60 questions and some might feel bored after a couple of them. This might convey that the S. Q chosen could have been shorter. The good part is that the questions were easy to understand and score. It is to be appreciated that the researcher has mentioned that certain individuals with high functioning autism, can be good in certain fields such as math’s and memory games. The addition of 20 fillers was a good thought so that the participants do not burnout. In study 1 the selected 103 participants were from different fields of work, would this affect the result, and would the outcome have been better if the selected working group had a similar occupation. The research did a good job in maintaining the identity of the second group that is the high functioning autistic participants. Hence following the ethics of research. The fact that both the groups had answered similarly for the filler question was unexpected. And shows that the high functioning autistic participants think more likely that of the normal participants. The number of participants in study 2 (47) could have been more for a better result, as the number of participants in study 1 were greater than in study 2 therefore, the minimum number of participants that is at least 100 are not fulfilled by the researcher. The high functioning autistic group seemed to perform higher than the researchers expected in the systemic performance, here the known-group validity can be applied to the obtained data. The theory chosen seemed to fit in with the study and to explain the obtained result. The study has not mentioned the time frame for the research, or the epistemological approach used. The key part of the research was the questionnaire which had a simple word and was easier for the participants to understand and to rate them (Schwarz, 1999). The research also makes use of between-group comparison from the data collected, although the comparison is made between highly functioning autistic participants and working people.
Conclusion:
The research had a lot of positive ends like the theories used, quantifying data, and maintaining the research ethics. The draw back found was that the number of participants involved, and the gender ratio seemed odd. Also, in the systemizing quotient seemed to have a lot of questions or a lot of rating to be done. There was not much previous research mentioned in the study. Although, this study could stand as a base for more future research.
10%
Unfortunately this does not meet the requirements for a higher grade for this assignment. – you needed to thoroughly read the target study, and the Unit 2a readings, such that you would be able to answer each of the 7 questions. However, it was not clear which of the 7 questions you were attempting to answer here.
Bibliography
Blampied, N. M. (2017). Analyzing Therapeutic Change Using Modified Brinley Plots: History, Construction, and Interpretation. Behaviour Therapy, 48(1), 115–127. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2016.09.002.
Cumming, G. F. (2007). Error bars in experimental biology. The Journal of Cell Biology, 177(1), 7-11. doi:10.1083/jcb.200611141.
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(5), 532-538. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015808.
Kline, P. (1993). Reliability of tests: Practical issues. In Handbook of psychological testing (pp. 5-14). Routledge.
Netemeyer, R. G. (2003). Validity. In Scaling procedures: Issues and applications (pp. 71-87). Sage.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Introduction. In Psychometric theory (Vol. 226, pp. 3-30). McGraw-Hill New York.
Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93.
Simon Baron-Cohen*, J. R. (2015). The systemizing quotient:an investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism,and normal sex differences.
Visser, P. S. (2000). Survey research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 223-252). Cambridge University Press.
The post Descriptive research in psychological science appeared first on My Assignment Online.
