the answers should be short and briefly written and there is an example of how it should be in one of these questionsthe other articles on question #3 will be online!
1. Answer the following from the article, Glass (1976) “Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research” 1-1. Briefly explain Figure 1 and Figure 2 in your own words: [Your answer goes here] 1-2. Regarding your answers above summarize the problems in integrating the literature in education as depicted in the Glass (1986) article: [Your answer goes here] 2. Answer the following from the article, Rourke (2007) “An historical perspective on meta-analysis: dealing quantitatively with varying study results” 2-1. Briefly list (you can use bullet points) what happened in each year/period regarding the development of meta analytic approach: [Your answer goes here] 3. Answer the following from the article, Montero and Leon (2007) “A guide for naming research studies in Psychology” 4-1. Carefully look into the ideas presented throughout pp. 850-854, Experiments vs. Quasi-experiments. There are seven design types in Experiments and 13 in quasi-experiments. Check the Methods (participants, sampling procedures) section of the following articles and find which design type(s) fits best for each article/study. For example, your answer can go like: “Experiments >> One independent variable design, within subjects” VanAuken, T. L., Chafouleas, S. M., Bradley, T. A., & Martens, B. K. (2002). Using brief experimental analysis to select oral reading interventions: An investigation of treatment utility. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 163–179. doi: 10.1023/A:1020126003221 [Your answer goes here] Vadasy, P. F., & Sanders, E. A. (2008). Benefits of repeated reading intervention for low-achieving fourth- and fifth-grade students. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 235–249. doi: 10.1177/ 0741932507312013 [Your answer goes here] Hawkins, R. O., Hale, A. D., Sheeley, W., & Ling, S. (2011). Repeated reading and vocabulary-previewing interventions to improve fluency and comprehension for struggling high-school readers. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 59–77. doi: 10.1002/ pits.20545 [Your answer goes here] Redalyc.A guide for naming research studies in Psychology International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology ISSN: 1697-2600
[email protected] Asociación Española de Psicología Conductual España Montero, Ignacio; León, Orfelio G. A guide for naming research studies in Psychology International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, vol. 7, núm. 3, 2007, pp. 847-862 Asociación Española de Psicología Conductual Granada, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=33770318 How to cite Complete issue More information about this article Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Scientific Information System Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative http://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=337 http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=33770318 http://www.redalyc.org/comocitar.oa?id=33770318 http://www.redalyc.org/fasciculo.oa?id=337&numero=6946 http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=33770318 http://www.redalyc.org/revista.oa?id=337 http://www.redalyc.org © International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology ISSN 1697-2600 2007, Vol. 7, Nº 3, pp. 847-862 A guide for naming research studies in Psychology1 Ignacio Montero2 and Orfelio G. León (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain) (Recibido 29 de junio 2007 / Received June 29, 2007) (Aceptado 20 de julio 2007 / Accepted July 20, 2007) ABSTRACT. In this work, the classification system for research methods in Psychology previously published by the authors is amplified and reviewed. We establish some cues for guiding its use and make some considerations on its utility. Based on classification of the research plan, in a first level the system is composed by three main groups: a) theoretical studies, b) empirical quantitative studies, and c) empirical qualitative studies. Within the first group two types are included, classical reviews and meta-analysis. Within the second, there are seven different types: observational descriptive studies, survey descriptive studies, experiments, quasi-experiments, ex post facto studies, single case experimental studies, and instrumental studies. The third group includes ethnography, case studies and action research. We present the main characteristics for each type and describe some keys which permit to identify their subtypes. All of them are illustrated with actual publications. The classification system we propose here will be used as model for research reports in order to be published in this journal. KEYWORDS. Methodologies classification. Research methods in Psychology. Theoretical study. RESUMEN. En este trabajo se revisa y amplía el sistema de clasificación de las metodologías de investigación en Psicología previamente publicado por los autores. Se 1 We acknowledge to the Journal editors for inviting us again to write this new article. 2 Correspondence: Facultad de Psicología. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Cantoblanco. 28049 Madrid (Spain). E-mail:
[email protected] 848 MONTERO and LEON. Naming research studies Int J Clin Health Psychol, Vol. 7, Nº 3 establecen pautas para guiar su utilización y se presentan algunas reflexiones sobre su utilidad. El sistema está basado en la lógica del plan de investigación. En un primer nivel, se compone de tres grandes grupos: a) estudios teóricos, b) estudios empíricos cuantitativos y c) estudios empíricos cualitativos. El primer grupo se descompone en estudios clásicos de revisión y estudios meta-analíticos. El segundo grupo se desglosa en siete clases: estudios descriptivos mediante observación, estudios descriptivos de poblaciones mediante encuestas, experimentos, cuasi experimentos, estudios ex post facto, experimentos de caso único y estudios instrumentales. El tercer grupo queda desglosado en etnografía, estudio de casos e investigación-acción. Se presentan las características más importantes de cada clase de estudio y, dentro de ellas, las claves que permiten identificar cada una de sus posibles variantes. Siempre se ilustran con investigaciones publicadas. El sistema de clasificación aquí propuesto se utilizará como modelo para los informes de investigación que se envíen a esta revista. PALABRAS CLAVE. Clasificación de metodologías. Métodos de investigación en Psicología. Estudio teórico. RESUMO. Neste trabalho revê-se e amplia-se o sistema de classificação das metodologias de investigação em Psicologia previamente publicado pelos autores. Estabelecem-se pistas para orientar a sua utilização e apresentam-se algumas reflexões sobre a sua utilidade. O sistema está baseado na lógica do plano de investigação. Num primeiro nível, compõe-se em três grandes grupos: a) estudos teóricos, b) estudos empíricos quantitativos e c) estudos empíricos qualitativos. No primeiro grupo incluem-se dois tipos, estudos clássicos de revisão e estudos meta-analíticos. No segundo grupo incluem- se sete tipos diferentes: estudos descritivos mediante observação, estudos descritivos de populações mediante inquéritos, experimentais, quase experimentais, estudos ex post facto, experiências de caso único e estudos instrumentais. O terceiro grupo inclui a etnografia, estudo de casos e investigação-acção. Apresentam-se as características mais importantes de cada classe de estudo e, dentro delas, as chaves que permitem identi- ficar cada uma de suas possíveis variantes. Todas são ilustradas com investigações publicadas. O sistema de classificação aqui proposto será utilizado como modelo para os relatórios de investigação que venham a ser enviados a esta revista. PALAVRAS CHAVE. Classificação de metodologias. Métodos de investigação em Psicologia. Estudo teórico. Introduction After some years using our proposal for classifying research methods in Psychology (Montero and León, 2002, 2005), the editor of this Journal invited us again to review it, writing a new article. In this new paper we present some modifications of the classification system supported on which we have already included in the last edition of our Handbook on Research Methods (León and Montero, 2008). In this new version we bring the distinction between qualitative and classical (or quantitative) studies to the beginning. We also make more detailed categories adding information in those parts of especial difficulty. The new version includes twenty nine new references to research studies published in English or Spanish. MONTERO and LEON. Naming research studies 849 Int J Clin Health Psychol, Vol. 7, Nº 3 Before to begin to exposure the system of classification, we consider of relevance to briefly remember some of the general reflections we presented in the previous version (Montero and León, 2005). The first regarded to the fact that the main objective of our proposal for classification of research studies in Psychology was not epistemological (in the sense which authors as Hempel, 1965, illustrated), but just methodological. That is, we thought our proposal in terms of creating a system for increasing reliability of document analysis and not in terms of to establish a system for ontological classification of research methods. In this sense, the whole system is open to reformulation. We will really appreciate any kind of comment in this direction (and we grateful to those colleagues, researchers and students who already gave us their suggestions). The second general reflection was related with the criteria used to create the system. Although methodology can be articulated through different levels (epistemology, research design, techniques for collecting data, strategies for data analysis), we organized the logic of the system mainly around the research design. In this new version it is also the case but we should precise two aspects: a) epistemology is now the key concept to use the classification in its first hierarchical level, and b) given the high flexibility of qualitative designing, within the research report of this type of studies it should be more important to carefully inform about the process of collecting and analyzing data (see AERA, 2006). Finally, we would like to insist again on the importance of giving precise information regarding the process of selecting participants and/or assigning them to the research groups. To refer just to the random nature of such process can be non sufficient and, in many times, confusing. In addition to recalling our past general reflections, let us to make a new general remark. This is related with our silence on mixed methods (see, for example, Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003). Researchers whom like to use this category in order to name their way of dealing with their studies designing are interested in breaking down the dichotomy between quantitative versus qualitative methodologies. With no deeper comments on this issue, we would like to argue for not including this label within the first hierarchical level of our classification. The main reason for excluding it is because the verbal form “mixed” refers to combining research designs, techniques for data collection and strategies for data analysis. But it is very difficult to find out a published study which includes a mixture of quantitative with qualitative designs. So we think that those researchers using the conceptual umbrella of “mixed methods” would be also able to use our system for naming their empirical studies. Let us now to present the definitions of the different types of studies organized within three big clusters, some of them including until three more subordinated levels. Theoretical study In this category, it will be included every work in which the authors neither provide their own original data nor present re-analysis from already collected or published data (in this case, the study will be classified following the