Harold Abel School of Psychology
This Methodology Review Form, version 3.0, must be completed and reviewed before writing the dissertation proposal. In the Harold Abel School of Psychology (HASOP), its satisfactory completion satisfies dissertation milestone 5, indicating that the proposal has passed scientific merit review, part of the IRB process.
Before going any further, review carefully the Methodology Form Instructions, v3.0, available on iGuide. (Academics Program Resources Dissertation New Dissertation Process Milestone Resources and Forms) It will be difficult to complete the MRF without using the Instructions.
Specialization Chairs Approval after Section 1
When you have completed Section 1, send the MRF to your mentor for review. When your mentor feels it is ready, he or she sends it to your specialization Chair. The Chair approves the topic as appropriate within your specialization. You then go on to the remaining sections.
Do not keep working on later sections until you receive your mentors and specialization Chairs approvals of Section 1. If the topic is disapproved, all your work on later sections will be for naught. Instead, work on the proposals Chapter Two, which describes the dissertation literature reviews.
Ratings
No grades are attached to this MRF. The ratings are designed to help the MRF reviewers show how your designs compare with research design standards in HASOP. An overall rating of 7 (on a 10-scale) suggests the study meets basic design standards in psychology and in HASOP. MRFs not reaching that level will usually be revised for a second review.
Dos and Donts
Do use the correct form This MRF is for QUANTITATIVE designs (statistical analysis). For a qualitative-only or a mixed methods study, use that form.
Do prepare your answers in a separate Word document. Editing and revising will be easier.
Set font formatting to Times New Roman, 11 point, regular style font or Arial, 10 point, regular style font. Use the Format menu.
Do set paragraph indentation (Format menu) for no indentation, no spacing.
Do copypaste items into the right-hand fields when they are ready.
Dont delete the descriptions in the left column
Dont lock the form. That will stop you from editing and revising within the form.
Do complete the Learner Information (A.) of the first table, and Section 1 first. Write the title (Item 4) last in Section 1. (It may need revision later when you name variables.).
Dont work beyond Section 1 until your Specialization Chair approves the topic.
Dont skip items or sections. If an item does not apply to your study, type NA in its field.
Do read the item descriptions and their respective Instructions carefully. Items request very specific information. Be sure you understand what is asked. (Good practice for IRB)
Do use primary sources to the greatest extent possible as references. Textbooks (Patton, Leedy and Ormrod, etc.) are not acceptable as the only references supporting methodological and design choices. Use them to track down the primary sources.
Do submit a revised MRF if, after approval, you change your design elements. It may not need a second review, but should be on file before your IRB is submitted.
A. Learner and Program Information
(to be completed by Researcher)Researcher NameResearcher EmailMentor NameMentor EmailSpecializationSpec Chair Email
B. Mentor and Specialization Chair Approval Title Topic Approval
(To be completed by Mentor and Specialization Chair when Items 1-4 are complete)Mentors
Insert your electronic signature here to certify approval of topic (Items 1-4 only), and forward to Chair.
Signature
DateChairs
Please insert your electronic signature to certify that topic and title are appropriate to your specialization and return to Mentor.
Signature
DateMRF Reviewer
Insert electronic signature here when approving scientific merit (per IRB).
Signature
C. Methodology Review Information (Reviewer use only)Reviewer Name DateDecision
7.00 or higher Approved
6.00-6.99 Provisional ApprovalMinor Revisions
5.99 or lower Deferred for major revisionsDate of First ReviewDate of Second ReviewDate of Third ReviewFINAL SUMMATIVE RATING
________FINAL SCIENTIFIC MERIT STATUS
(Psychology Research Support to Complete this section) Approved (7.00 or higher)Provisional Approval (work with committee) (6.00-6.99)Deferred for revisions (below 6.00)
RESEARCHERS Review carefully the Methodology Review Form Instructions, v. 3.0, before you complete this form. The Instructions are available on iGuide for your use, and will save you much heartache
Section 1. Research Problem, Significance, Question(s), Title Quantitative
(Chapter 1, Sections A, B, C, D, F of Proposal)1.1 Research Problem (Chapter 1, Sec. A and B)
State the research problem your study will investigate, including its background . See Instructions.This study is based on research and findings presented by Buunk, Park, and Dubbs (2008) in their paper titled Parent-Offspring Conflict in Mate Preferences. Interviews conducted invited inquiry into love-based v. arranged marriage, long and short term relationships between men and women, anthropological and sociological considerations, reproductive interests, culture, religion, socio-economic status, educational background, physical attractiveness, athleticism, parental control, and more. The research approach for this paper will be quantitative. The breadth and depth of this research has spanned across many cultures, languages, and decades of history. The research question follows.
1.2 Purpose of the Research (Chapter 1, Sec. C)
State the purpose of the study. Typically, the purpose is to contribute to knowledge and solve the research problem. See Instructions.The purpose of the research is to have homo sapiens attempted to influence the mating results of their children or offspring
1.3 Significance of the Problem.
(Chapter 1 Section D)
Describe the significance of your studys investigation of the research problem. Include a statement of the studys particular significance to the field of psychology. See Instructions.This study and its findings are relevant in the discussion of, and formulation of further questions, regarding the selection of mating partners, especially the differing criteria used for such between parents and their offspring. The intended audience is clinical professional psychology personnel and students of clinical psychology. The findings from this extensive body of research across a variety of cultures and continents will contribute to the understanding of how those mating decisions are made.
1.4 Research Question
(Chapter 1 Section F)
Write out your research question. If there are sub-questions or more than one, number them accordingly. See Instructions.Do parental opinions or values play a role in their childrens mating habits
1.5 Dissertation Title
Do not write the title until Items 1.1-1.4 are complete. See Instructions.
ParentOffspring Conflict in Mate PreferencesRATINGS for Section 1.
1-2 Unready 3-4 Marginal 5-6 Adequate 7-8 Satisfactory 9-10 Outstanding
Fractional Ratings (e.g., 6.75) are AcceptableMentors Comments
Please date your comments.Reviewers RatingReviewers Comments
Please date your comments.
DISSERTATION RESEARCHERS STOP
If this MRF is for your real dissertation (after comps), forward Section 1 to your Mentor for review and for Specialization Chairs Approval.
DO NOT COMPLETE ANY MORE SECTIONS UNTIL YOUR SPECIALIZATION CHAIR HAS APPROVED YOUR TOPIC
Section 2. Overall Methodology and Approach Quantitative
(Chapter 1, Section E of Prospectus)DISSERTATION RESEARCHERS Do not complete remaining sections until the mentor and the Specialization chair have approved the first four items by inserting their signatures. See Instructions.2.1 Research Design
(Chapter 1, Section E)
Describe your research design in words. See Instructions.The research employed a quasi experimental mechanism involving of randomly selected participants put in to five groups based on cultural considerations. The analysis was done by use of means and t-tests for testing consistency. Data collection was done using questionnaires.2.2 Approach
(Chapter 1, Section E) Quantitative approaches include experimental, quasi-experimental, or non-experimentaldescriptive. Please state the approach, then how it is consistent with your research problemquestion. See Instructions for details.Quasi experimental approach was employed because the grouping of participants was not done randomly they were grouped to take in to account their cultural affiliations.2.3 Methodological Model (Chapter 1, Sec. E)
If using a particular quantitative model (e.g., structural equation modeling or a specific kind of regression analysis), describe it here. If not, type NA. See Instructions for details.NA2.4 Rationale
(Chapter 1, Sec. E).
Discuss how your design is suited to answering your research question. See Instructions for details.Temporal sequencing for the research question is qualitative then quantitative. The qualitative characteristics represent the preferences of the participants quantifying the preferences provides measurable way of evaluation.
RATINGS for Section 2.
1-2 Unready 3-4 Marginal 5-6 Adequate 7-8 Satisfactory 9-10 Outstanding
Fractional Ratings (e.g., 6.75) are AcceptableMentors Comments
Please date your comments.Reviewers RatingReviewers Comments
Please date your comments
Section 3. Framework, Constructs, Variables, Operational Definitions Quantitative
(Chapters One and Three of Prospectus)3.1 Theoretical Framework
(Chap. 1, Sec. G Chap. 2, Sec. B)
Describe the psychological theory base that guides or focuses this study or defines the constructs it will investigate. See Instructions.The research is guided by sexual selection theory. The research seeks to establish preference the extent of preference conflicts between parents and children on mate selection.3.2 Unit(s) of Analysis
(Chapter 1, Section E)
Describe the unit(s) of analysis for this study. Typically, the unit of analysis will be individual or group. Multiple research questions may require different units of analysis. See Instructions.The preferred characteristics for the potential mate will form the analysis unit. The research analyzed between 22 and 28 research units to determine 3.3 Constructs
(Chapter One, Sections F and H)
Define each construct required by the research question and title. Provide citations showing your theoretical framework. Number each construct. See Instructions.The researchs aim was to establish parental-offspring conflict in sexual selection. For this purpose the research classified the characteristics in to three broad categories so that the research questions established the role played by characteristics related to
Heritable fitness.
Parental investment and cooperation
Additional characteristics3.4 Variables (Definitions of Constructs as variables)
(Chapter 1, Sec. F and H)
Define each construct (in Item 3.3) as a variable. Provide citations to theoretical framework or previous research supporting the selection of variable type. See Instructions.Heritable fitness This was broken down to characteristics that define heritable fitness. These include body size, creativity, physical fitness etc. Each of these attributes was assigned a value between 1 and 7, 1 representing the highest level of unacceptability to the offspring and 7 being the highest unacceptability for the parent. The participants would then fill in the questionnaire using the assigned values to reflect their perception regarding the parameters.
Parental investment and cooperation also used the same scale of 1 to 7 but with different units of analysis. The units used for this included family background, religious beliefs, social class education and so on.
Additional qualities are those qualities outside the constructs but which the researchers felt played a crucial role in the selection process. Examples include attitude, illness (mental or physical), virginity and temperament. 3.5 Operational Definitions
(Chapter 1, Sec. F and H)
Present an operational definition for each construct you will measure (with citations for published measures). See Instructions.Heritable fitness The analyses were done based on the samples 1-5. Each of the 5 samples was analyzed by finding a mean value for all the 22 units of analysis. The mean then acted as the measure with those units having a mean less than the overall mean denoting traits unacceptable to offspring while those with means above the overall mean being most unacceptable to parents.
Parental investment and cooperation The process was similar only that the items under consideration were those units that connoted this characteristic.
Additional characteristics They were also analyzed using the same criteria only that they had unit means that show unacceptability to both parent and offspring.3.6 Relationships among Variables
(Chapter 1, Sec. F and H)
State the relationships between or among variables. Ensure consistency with research question and title. See Instructions.
The variables are independent of each other.
RATINGS for Section 3.
1-2 Unready 3-4 Marginal 5-6 Adequate 7-8 Satisfactory 9-10 Outstanding
Fractional Ratings (e.g., 6.75) are AcceptableMentors Comments
Please date your comments.Reviewers RatingReviewers Comments
Please date your comments.
Section 4. Population and Sampling Quantitative
(Chapter One, Section E and Chapter Three, Section C)4.1 The Population
(Chapter 3, Section C)
Describe the larger group (population) of people, animals, or data in which your study is interested. Do NOT describe the actual sample here. See Instructions.College-age youths from culturally diverse backgrounds4.2 The Sample
(Chap. 1, Sec. E Chap. 3, Sec. C)
Describe the characteristics of your sample, including (A) demographics, (B) inclusion criteria if any (C) exclusion criteria if any. See Instructions. Ethnically and culturally diverse
Aged between 18 and 25
4.3 Sampling Procedures
(Chapter 3, Section C)
Describe in detail the (A) recruiting, (B) selecting, and (C) assigning-to-groups procedures you will follow for obtaining participants (your sample). Include citation(s) supporting the sampling methods. See Instructions. Each of the samples was recruited differently
Sample 1 was recruited using the internet. The questionnaires were sent to them via mail and their responses tied to their course requirements. The questionnaire was administered in Dutch.
Sample 2 was approached by exchange student and given questionnaires to fill. The questionnaire was administered in English.
Sample 3 was approached via youth organizations by research assistants, who then delivered and collected questionnaires for them to fill. The research assistants did the translations for this group, their questionnaires were translated to Dutch.
Sample 4 participated in a lab study that had the questionnaire relating to the research as one of the tasks. The questionnaire was administered in Dutch.
Sample 5 were approached by the third author at the Arizona College and requested to fill the questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered in English.4.4 Sample Size
(Chapter 3, Section C)
Provide anticipated sample size, how it was calculated, and why it is appropriate for your research question. See Instructions.The research sample size was 768 and was so because the issues being investigated are subjective thus needing a large sample size.
4.5 Rationale
(Chap 3, Section CD)
Describe how selection procedures and sample size are consistent with research question. Indicate resources consulted to make these decisions. See Instructions The rationale was to have as many cultures as possible represented. For that reason, the learning institutions provided the best opportunity for achieving the diversity.4.6 Ethical Considerations
(45 CFR 46 APA Ethical Principles)
Identify ethical issues involved in sampling procedures. (Key Belmont principle equity) (IRB Application will describe how they are dealt with.) See Instructions) Consent was sought from all participants as a first step. There were no cash or material incentives for the participants and thus the question of equity based on that does not arise. All participants were subjected to the same process of sampling and analysis.RATINGS for Section 4.
1-2 Unready 3-4 Marginal 5-6 Adequate 7-8 Satisfactory 9-10 Outstanding
Fractional Ratings (e.g., 6.75) are AcceptableMentors Comments
Please date your commentsReviewers RatingReviewers Comments
Please date your comments
Section 5. Hypotheses and Data Types Quantitative
(Chapter 1, Section F Chapter 3, Sections E, F, )5.1 Restate research question(s).
Copy and paste Item 1.3. Include each sub-question, numbered sequentially.Do parental opinions or values play a role in their childrens mating habits5.2 Quantitative Hypotheses
(Chap. 1, Sec. F Chap. 3, Sec. E, F)
For each quantitative sub-question (sub-Q), list hypotheses for their investigation. Give nulls and alternates for each sub-Q. For descriptive studies using no null, state the research hypothes(es) and complete Item 5.2a, below. Number hypotheses to match their sub-questions. See Instructions.Hypothesis
Children may have relative preference for mates with traits indicative of heritable fitness, whereas parents have preference for mated with traits indicative of parental investment and cooperation with the ingroup.5.2a Rationale No Null
If no null hypothesis is proposed, provide a rationale here. If not applicable, type NA.The research design is two tailed since failure of the hypothesis results in a new hypothesis. 5.3 Type(s) of Data
Complete the table rows for each hypotheses-set numbered in Item 5.2. Insert cursor in first cell, type , then simply Tab from cell to cell. If more rows are needed, use enter key to add rows within the last row.
Hypothesis Variable NameData type (nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio)Variable NameData type (categorical, ordinal, interval, or ratio)1Heritable qualitiesOrdinal Parental investment and cooperation ordinal RATINGS for Section 5.
1-2 Unready 3-4 Marginal 5-6 Adequate 7-8 Satisfactory 9-10 Outstanding
Fractional Ratings (e.g., 6.75) are AcceptableMentors Comments
Please date your commentsReviewers RatingReviewers Comments
Please date your comments
Section 6. Measures, Field Tests, Data Collection, and Analysis Quantitative
(Chapters One, Section F Chapter Three, Sections E, F, )6.1 Measures
(Chap. 1, Sec. F Chap. 3, Sec. D, E, F)
List (by sub-question number) and describe each data collection instrument or measurement tool you will use. Include (A) citations for published measures, (B) data type(s) generated by each measure, and (C) available psychometric information (including validity reliability coefficients). See Instructions.Field testing was used6.2 Field Testing
(Chap 3, Sec. D, E)
Describe any field test of any instruments. Field tests must be done (A) for new instruments, and (B) with expert panelists. Field tests require no IRB review required. (Pilot studies with participants do.) See InstructionsA scale was set up ranging from 1-7 for each of the units under analysis.6.3 Data Collection Procedures
(Chap. 1, Sec. F Chap. 3, Sec. D)
List and describe the procedures you will use to collect your data. See Instructions.Questionnaires were handed to the participants.
They were informed of the confidentiality with which the results would be treated.
They were given a choice of filling them on the spot or filling them away at a place and time of their choice, provided they stayed within a certain time limit.6.4 Ethical Considerations
(45 CFR 46 APA Ethical Principles)
Describe any ethical issues about data collection procedures. (How they will be managed will be discussed in IRB Application.) (Key Belmont principle beneficence, i.e., riskbenefit analysis). See Instructions. The participants were asked not indicate their names on the questionnaires, instead, they were asked to indicate ethnic origin and age.
There was not cash inducement.
Those who felt uncomfortable filling the questionnaires in the room were given the option of filling them elsewhere.
The questionnaires were structured in an easy to understand format.6.5 Statistical Analysis
(Chap. Three, Sec. G)
Describe the statistics to be used for each hypothesis or research sub-question. Number each according to the hypothesis numbers in Item 5.2. See Instructions.The hypothesis was analyzed using the arithmetic mean. The variables to be analyzed are few and given that they are both independent of each other, an arithmetic mean would suffice. A t-test was however necessary to test the consistency of the data.RATINGS for Section 6.
1-2 Unready 3-4 Marginal 5-6 Adequate 7-8 Satisfactory 9-10 Outstanding
Fractional Ratings (e.g., 6.75) are AcceptableMentors Comments
Please date your commentsReviewers RatingReviewers Comments
Please date your comments
Section 7. Researchers Critical Analysis of Design Quantitative
(Chapter 1, Section G)7.1 Procedures Diagram
(Chap. 1, Sec. E Chap. Three, Sec. D)
Diagram the step by step procedures from sample recruitment through data analysis. Ensure that there are no procedural confusions. (A standard design diagram is allowed as an alternative to procedures diagram) See Instructions.Procedures
Identify potential participants
Inform participants of their potential role and seek their consent
Distribute questionnaires
Receive questionnaires
Initiate data analysis
Prepare report
Get a peer review of the report
Publish the report
7.2 Risk Level Estimate
(45 CFR 46)
Estimate, for each of the following, whether the risk of participant discomfort or harm is minimal or more-than-minimal. Use definition in 45 CFR 46.102(i). When there is more than one procedure, estimate the highest level. (Type Minimal or More than Minimal after each item.) Present safety plan for more than minimal in IRB Application, not here.)
See Instructions.A) Initial contact(s) minimal
B) Sample recruitment consenting procedure(s) minimal
C) Preliminary meetings (e.g., training) (if applicable) minimal
D) Data collection procedure(s) (including member checking, etc.) more than minimal
E) Data management procedure(s) (confidentiality breach) minimal
F) Data analysis procedure(s) (confidentiality breach) minimal
G) Write-uppresentation (confidentiality breach) minimal7.3 Assumptions
(Chapter 1, Section G)
Identify the key (A) theoretical, (B) topical, and (C) methodological assumptions of the study provide citations to support their adoption. See Instructions.Theoretical assumption-The study is based on the assumption within the sexual theory implying that women chose their husbands.
Topical assumption The research treats all the traits with equal importance. Some traits may be less important to both parents and children.
Methodological assumptions
The research question did not present a clear scenario to the participants in terms of short or long term relationship.
The research assumed that both sexes had the same preferences.
7.4 Strengths
Evaluate the strengths of your study. See Instructions.The strength of the study lies in the diversity of the participants. The large sample size has enable the testing of each of the constructs within a wide range of cultures, thereby giving a result that cuts through several cultures.
7.5 Limitations
(Chapter 1, Section G)
Evaluate the weaknesses of your study at this time. Indicate areas to be improved before start of study and areas that cannot be improved. Give reasons for not redesigning any limitations, if any. See Instructions.The issues covered in the research were quite wide leading to many assumptions, especially methodological ones. Additionally, the research failed to get an input from parents, meaning that it relied on their childrens interpretations, which may be inaccurate. Notwithstanding that however, the research still fulfilled its primary purpose of establishing the relationship between parents and children on issues related to mate selection. There was therefore no need for redesign because there is room for future improvements.
RATINGS for Section 7.
1-2 Unready 3-4 Marginal 5-6 Adequate 7-8 Satisfactory 9-10 OutstandingMentors Comments
Please date your commentsReviewers RatingReviewers Comments
Please date your comments
Section 8. References In the field below, insert the reference list for all sources used (cited) in this Methodology Review Form. The cell will expand to accommodate your Reference list. Use APA 5th Edition formatting.
RATINGS for Section 8. References
1-2 Unready 3-4 Marginal 5-6 Adequate 7-8 Satisfactory 9-10 Outstanding
Fractional Ratings (e.g., 6.75) are AcceptableMentors Comments
Please date your commentsReviewers RatingReviewers Comments
Please date your comments
Learner Stop here and submit to your Mentor for his or her final approval.
Mentor Please complete Section 5, below. When Satisfactory or better, please submit Form to HYPERLINK mailtoPsyResearchSupportCapella.edu PsyResearchSupportCapella.edu.
Faculty Summative Evaluation
To be completed by both the Mentor and the Methodology Committee Reviewer.
Mentors Overall ReviewMentors Comments
Please insert comments on strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations, or refer to similar comments in earlier sections.
Methodology Reviewers Summative Review Reviewers Summative Rating
Average your earlier ratings (n 8), to two decimal places.Reviewers Comments
Please insert comments on strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations, or refer to similar comments in earlier sections.FINAL SUMMATIVE RATING by REVIEWERStep 1 Insert it here _____
Step 2 Insert it on page 1, TABLE C FINAL SUMMATIVE RATING.
Appendix A Definitions of Rating Items
1-2Unready Fails to answer any of the elements or all the main items in a section, or inaccurately conceptualizes the issue(s) addressed. Demonstrates insufficient understanding of basic methodology and design principles. Lacks sufficient references of any kind, or in-text citations are to texts or other tertiary sources or are improperly formatted on a recurring basis (APA, 2001). Writing is below standard for basic scholarship and APA style is not followed consistently.
3-4Marginal Partially answers the questions, addresses only some of the main items, or conceptualizes the issues partly inaccurately. Demonstrates some understanding of methodology and design principles, but at a low level and without clarity, focus, or integration. Lacks references to primary research or theory, or consistently relies on only a couple of basic and general methodology textbooks rather than sources specific to the approach, design, procedures, and types of analysis being proposed. (For methods itemsas opposed to research problem, significance, research question, population and sample itemsmethodology texts are satisfactory, although specialized procedures should be supported by appropriate primary sources, not general textbooks.) References or in-text citations are often improperly formatted. Writing or formatting errors are five or more per page.
5-6Adequate The response to the item generally answers the question adequately (covers the main issues), demonstrating a basic, if not well-integrated, knowledge of methodology and design principles. There are no clearly incorrect or inaccurate conceptualizations, but the response seems uncoordinated with other items and design elements. References and in-text citations are appropriate (primary sources regarding content or specialized items, methodology texts regarding purely methods and procedures items), although there may be occasional writing or formatting errors (2-4 per page).
7-8Satisfactory The responses answer the items fully, demonstrate a well-integrated knowledge of methodology and design, and are both clear and well presented. References and in-text citations are appropriate and properly formatted. Writing is correct in usage and presentation, although there may be occasional errors (fewer than two per page).
9-10Outstanding The response is satisfactory (see 4Satisfactory), and there is a clear and consistent integration of all design elements. The writing is clear, well organized, and vigorous. There is less than one error per page. All references and citations are formatted properly and demonstrate scholarly investigation of a high order. Examples of scholarly investigation of a high order would include (but not be limited to) using appropriate citations from a related field that bear on the research problem using appropriate specialized or unusual methods and procedures justified by references to other studies applying complex or sophisticated theoretical frameworks and concepts to the research or unusual elegance in the design itself.
Integration means that the elements of the design clearly work together and support one another. Understands methodology without integration, then, means the items are properly understood individually, but in a rote, unconnected, or unsystematic fashion. The Form has a fill-in-the-blanks quality.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment