China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Uncertainty in Transition
Published in Kenneth I. Mavor, Michael J. Platow, Boris Bizumic, Self and Social Identity in Educational Contexts, 2017
Tegan Cruwys, Amber M. Gaffney, Yvonne Skipper
Responses to the uncertainty manipulation check indicated that students were, indeed, somewhat less certain of themselves in the high uncertainty conditions (M = 4.70; SD = 1.60) than the low uncertainty conditions (M = 5.30, SD = 1.20; t(111) = 1.99, p = 0.049). To assess the impact of the manipulations on the relative affiliation with both groups, a 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA was conducted. This revealed a significant main effect of group, F(1, 107) = 10.18, p = 0.002; students identified more strongly with the study group than with the party group. However, this effect was qualified by a significant two-way interaction between uncertainty and entitativity, F(1, 107) = 3.92, p = 0.050. This occurred such that when uncertainty was high, students identified more strongly with the cohesive group (regardless of group norms). This interaction is depicted in Figure 11.2. Therefore, the first hypothesis of our model was supported.
Evaluating Outcomes in the Interdisciplinary Treatment of Chronic Pain: A Guide for Practicing Clinicians
Published in Michael E. Schatman, Alexandra Campbell, John D. Loeser, Chronic Pain Management, 2007
Kevin E. Vowles, Richard T. Gross, Lance M. McCracken
Finally, outcomes assessment should not only attend to treatment outcome, but to the theorized process by which treatment is assumed to work. This last issue pertains to those key variables that are specifically targeted for change and is one way of supporting the validity of a treatment approach. Such analyses, variously referred to as process analyses or manipulation checks, are analogous to the checks that are sometimes used in laboratory-based studies that determine whether the experimental procedure has had the desired effect (17). For example, cognitive-behavioral approaches put an emphasis on how thoughts, beliefs, and other mental processes influence pain intensity and functional status in individuals with chronic pain. If one were interested in assessing this hypothesized influence, separate measures of mental processes would be given with measures of pain and functioning. Post hoc analyses could then determine magnitude of change in the measures of mental processes, as well as how they are related to main outcome measures.
Measurement Issues in the Analysis of Within-Person Change
Published in Jason T. Newsom, Richard N. Jones, Scott M. Hofer, Longitudinal Data Analysis, 2013
Daniel E. Bontempo, Frederick M.E. Grouzet, Scott M. Hofer
Beyond perspectives of response shift as simply problematic for the study of change is the idea that response shift might be useful in some circumstances. Meredith (1993) distinguished the practical test user and the scientific test user and noted that while measurement equivalence needed to be established for the practical user, failure to demonstrate measurement equivalence in a particular context might lead the scientific user in an inductive fashion to a more nuanced understanding of the construct or to make important theoretical refinements. Golembiewski et al. (1975) argued that a priori prediction of beta or gamma change could be utilized as a manipulation check or to validate an intervention. The crucial point is that based on the nature/content of the intervention, specific hypotheses about subsequent measurement recalibration could be formulated. If these hypotheses were empirically supported, then there would be evidence that the intervention is doing exactly what it is designed to do. More recently, the idea of exploiting measurement bias to further construct validation has been reiterated (M. C. Edwards & Wirth, 2009). Again, the crucial point is a priori hypotheses about any lack of measurement equivalence. Validity involves evidence that a measure assesses what it purports to measure. When a researcher is able to make nuanced predictions about the calibrations of measures to constructs, this can be taken as a kind of construct validation. In this approach, a hypothesis of non-invariance for a particular measure would be based on some expected change in the frequency of behavior (or likelihood of endorsement) based on developmental trends not directly related to the construct of interest. The hypothetical example M. C. Edwards and Wirth offer is the a priori hypothesis that an item about defiance on a delinquency scale would decrease in importance from ages 8 to 12, as processes of autonomy developed in early adolescence. In the context of aging and health, an example might be the expectation that quality of life scale item about autonomy might increase/decrease in importance after a successful versus unsuccessful transition to assisted living, while items about social relations and purpose remained stable.
The role and creation of pressure in training: Perspectives of athletes and sport psychologists
Published in Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2023
William R. Low, Paul Freeman, Joanne Butt, Mike Stoker, Ian Maynard
Although a strength of this study is that themes are based on examples of PT that have been feasible and accepted in applied practice, there is insufficient empirical evidence to advocate for using any specific pressure manipulation described by the participants. Intervention studies are needed to empirically test how well specific consequences with extended reach and psychological demands create pressure. Manipulation checks can compare these manipulations to non-pressurized training or other demands and consequences, and studies can also continue to examine properties of manipulations in more detail. For example, the consequences described in the current study tended to involve the potential for athletes to “lose” (e.g., forfeits, negative judgment) rather than win something (e.g., a reward), so there may be even more nuances within the properties described in this study.
The Effects of Victim Gender Identity, Juror Gender, and Judicial Instructions on Victim Blaming, Crime Severity Ratings, and Verdicts in Sexual Assault Trials
Published in Journal of Homosexuality, 2023
Lisa M. Carter, Leilani B. Goodmon, Medhini Urs, Heath Rutledge-Jukes
Another important limitation relates to a failure to implement an appropriate manipulation check. Our test of attention and memory only included one manipulation check question designed to assess participant’s attention to and memory of the victim’s gender identity. Although 90% of our sample correctly answered details of the trial and 100% of participants answered the manipulation check question correctly, a word of caution is warranted when interpreting the results. First the manipulation check question was written as a TRUE/FALSE statement and only assessed the trans vs. cis gender identity with no specific assessment of the distinction between the male and female status of the victim. Thus, participants who may have truly failed to notice and remember the manipulated variables (i.e., the specific gender identity of the victim or the judge’s instructions) may not have been appropriately identified and thus were retained in the analyses. In previous research, errors related to manipulation checks typically ran higher than errors related to non-manipulated details (Cullen & Monds, 2020). Thus, participants may have remembered case details and not necessarily the manipulated characteristics making relationships between a victim’s characteristic and jurors’ decisions difficult. Future researchers should implement a more appropriate manipulation check in order to determine and eliminate participants who failed to notice the pertinent characteristics of the victim(s) and the presence or absence of the judge’s instructions.
The effect of thought importance on stress responses: a test of the metacognitive model
Published in Stress, 2018
Lora Capobianco, Anthony P. Morrison, Adrian Wells
Manipulation Check. A manipulation check was conducted at the end of the study. Participants rated two 11-point Likert scale items assessing their appraisal of the experimental paradigm. The items included: “How much did you believe that you would hear an unpleasant noise randomly during the experiment?”, or “How much did you believe that you would hear an unpleasant noise during the experiment caused by your thoughts?”, dependent on if participants were assigned to the control or experimental conditions respectively, and “How much did you believe that the EEG would pick up your negative thoughts to stress?”, responses ranged from 0 (did not believe this was true) to 100 (completely convinced this was true).