Just looking to get a quote for this assignment only require help with part b,c,d.
PS298Lab Assignment 1Fall 1996 PS295 OC 1 Due: Thursday October 28 – Week 7 Day 1 at 11:59pm [Total: 50 MARKS] This assignment is composed of four sections. In Part A you will apply your knowledge of research ethics, in Part B you will demonstrate your understanding of measurement, in Part C you will answer questions about sampling, and in Part D you will calculate and interpret descriptive statistics. To do the assignment: Create a MS Word document and then type in the Question numbers (e.g., Q1 A, Q1 B, etc.) and your answers. Paste in any screenshots required. Do not include the assignment questions in your submitted document. Submit your assignment as a MS Word document in the Dropbox (upload it using Add File, and then click Submit). If you do not have MS Word on your computer, you can download it here: https://students.wlu.ca/services-and-spaces/tech- services/software/microsoft-office-365.html This assignment must be completed independently – it is not a group assignment. Your answers must be expressed in your own words. Unauthorized copying of information (from online sources, books, your peers, etc.) is academic misconduct and will result in a grade of zero. You must submit your completed assignment as an MS Word document in the MyLS Dropbox. If you submit your document in any other format, it will be considered late and receive an initial 20% penalty and an additional 10% penalty per day until it is re- submitted as an MS Word document. Ensure you receive and save the submission notification email when you post your completed assignment in the Dropbox. This will be sent to your MyLS email inbox if your document was successfully uploaded in the Dropbox. If you do not receive this notification, your assignment has not been submitted, and will therefore not be graded. Q1: [2 MARKS] A researcher conducted a study to investigate the relationship between Sense of Community and Self-Esteem. Her findings suggest the two variables are not related; however, she expected they would be. The researcher decides to remove all of the very low scores from the dataset and then runs the analysis again. This did the trick! Her results now show a significant relationship between Sense of Community and Self-Esteem. She then destroys the data (i.e., the very low scores that she removed) and proceeds to prepare her manuscript for publication. https://students.wlu.ca/services-and-spaces/tech-services/software/microsoft-office-365.html https://students.wlu.ca/services-and-spaces/tech-services/software/microsoft-office-365.html PS295 OC 2 Review Laurier’s definition of research misconduct (Policy 11.14, item 2.04) to determine which TWO acts of research misconduct the researcher has conducted. This information can be found on the Laurier website in the governance section: https://www.wlu.ca/about/governance/assets/resources/11.14-policy-for-the-responsible- conduct-of-research.html Q2: [2 marks] What is the difference between non-participant observational research and participant observational research? AND, which one typically requires REB review and approval? (Hint: Refer to Article 2.3 of the TCPS 2: https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2-eptc2_2018_chapter2- chapitre2.html) Q3: [2 MARKS] What does Justice refer to with respect to research? AND, what is an important threat to Justice? (Hint: Refer to Article 1.1 of the TCPS 2: https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2- eptc2_2018_chapter1-chapitre1.html) Q4: [7 MARKS] Below are scenarios that describe how researchers have tried to assess the reliability and validity of their measures. For each of the 7 individual scenarios, indicate which one of the following qualities is most directly illustrated. Only provide ONE quality for each scenario listed below. Each quality can be used more than once (i.e., can apply to more than one scenario). To give your answer for each scenario, please just type (or copy and paste) one of the 16 qualities listed here: Good test-retest reliability Poor test-retest reliability Good internal reliability Poor internal reliability Good interrater reliability Poor interrater reliability Good face validity Poor face validity Good content validity Poor content validity Good criterion validity Poor criterion validity Good convergent validity Poor convergent validity Good discriminant validity Poor discriminant validity SCENARIO A: A researcher studying conditioned place preference in rats asks two coders to watch the same rat in a place preference chamber, and to record the amount of time the rat spends in each side of the chamber. There is a correlation of .84 between the two coders. SCENARIO B: A researcher develops a new 10-item scale designed to assess social anxiety. On the scale, respondents indicate their agreement with statements related to their thoughts and experiences. The researcher sends her scale to be reviewed by three experts in the study of social anxiety, and each reviewer has concerns that some important aspects of social anxiety are not covered by the scale items. SCENARIO C: Continuing with the previous scenario, the researcher has a large sample of students complete the social anxiety scale at the start of the fall term, and finds that Cronbach’s alpha = .27. https://www.wlu.ca/about/governance/assets/resources/11.14-policy-for-the-responsible-conduct-of-research.html https://www.wlu.ca/about/governance/assets/resources/11.14-policy-for-the-responsible-conduct-of-research.html https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2-eptc2_2018_chapter2-chapitre2.html https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2-eptc2_2018_chapter2-chapitre2.html https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2-eptc2_2018_chapter1-chapitre1.html https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2-eptc2_2018_chapter1-chapitre1.html PS295 OC 3 SCENARIO D: Continuing with the previous scenario, the same sample of students completes the social anxiety scale again at the end of the fall term. The correlation between their scores at the start of the term and end of the term is r = .73. SCENARIO E: A researcher developed a new scale to measure grandiose narcissism and found that his measure correlates strongly with a well-validated scale that also assesses grandiose narcissism. SCENARIO F: Continuing with the previous scenario, the new scale of grandiose narcissism was also strongly correlated with a measure of obsessive compulsive disorder that has been validated and used in many previous research studies. SCEANRIO G: A researcher creates a brief, 4-item measure designed to assess people's level of depression. She administered the measure to a sample of in-patients who had been diagnosed (by a team of psychologists and medical professionals) with clinical depression and also to a sample of students enrolled at a local university with no diagnosis. She found that depression scores were similar in the two samples. Q5: [7 MARKS] Researchers studying types of play in children had two coders observe videos of pairs of children (dyads) who were left in a play room for 4 minutes. At each of four time points, the coders judged whether the dyad was engaged in either no play, interactive play, or parallel play at that moment. The coders’ judgments are summarized in the table below. Coder 1 Coder 2 INTERACT PARALLEL NO PLAY INTERACT PARALLEL NO PLAY Dyad 1 Time 1 X X Time 2 X X Time 3 X X Time 4 X X Dyad 2 Time 1 X X Time 2 X X Time 3 X X Time 4 X X Dyad 3 Time 1 X X Time 2 X X Time 3 X X Time 4 X X Dyad 4 Time 1 X X Time 2 X X Time 3 X X Time 4 X X A. Calculate an appropriate statistic to assess the interrater reliability of this observational measure, and indicate the value that you obtain. Calculate the statistic by hand, provide an appropriate formula, and show all your work/calculations. B. Would you conclude that this observational measure has acceptable interrater reliability? Why or why not? PS295 OC 4 C. Briefly suggest two steps that the researchers could take in an attempt to obtain higher interrater reliability in their future studies. Q6: [5 MARKS] Imagine that a school teacher wants to select a representative sample of 5 students from his class of 28 students listed below, and has asked for your help. Please use the randomize function in Excel (or a similar spreadsheet program) to select the random sample of five students, and then answer the following questions. Chad Edwin Chan Sam Keith Justin Tashi Weston Katie Emily Todd Jackson Elliott Neil Rosalie Mya Jayson Isla Tania Anabella Hendrix Zahra Destiny Evan Ahmed Annette Connor Zhao A. Who are the five students chosen for the sample? List their names. B. Provide a screen shot of your spreadsheet that includes columns showing how you arrived at your random sample. C. Referring to the spreadsheet you provided in Item B, briefly describe in your own words, the steps that you took to select the random sample. Q7: [10 MARKS] Use the research randomizer program (https://www.randomizer.org/) to obtain the samples indicated below. In each case, select options so that your set of numbers is sorted from least to greatest, and place markers are off. Include a screen shot of your “research randomizer results” page on your MS Word assignment. Do not simply cut and paste the list of numbers – you must include an image of the entire results screen to receive full marks. Laurier’s homecoming committee wants to know whether alumni perceived this year’s event as welcoming. A total of 680 alumni attended a homecoming event this year. Their age breakdown was as follows: 136 alumni were 24 years or younger, 340 were 25-34 years, 170 were 35-44, and 34 were 45 years or older. These alumni were sorted by age (youngest to oldest) and assigned a number from 1-680 A. Obtain a stratified sample of 100 participants that includes people from each age group (Note: You will need 4 sets of numbers). B. Now, imagine that the homecoming committee decided to select their sample using a different approach. They decide on a sample size of 100 people, and simply select the first 100 people who registered for the event. Is this approach likely to provide a representative sample? Briefly explain why or why not. https://www