Hi Kat,
Here are the links for my comments:-
http://psuc53.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/magic-of-21st-century-hypnosis-3/#comments (sorry my internet crashed on this one, so I had to find and copy this way)
TGITFB! (Thank god it’s the final blog!): Can correlation show causality?
Regards,
Fflur
The ‘placebo effect’ is a positive change which is not attributed to medicine or treatment. It is fake medical treatment. Participants in experiments are given ‘medicine’ either a sugar pill or water injection, which alone has no medicinal effect. It is not just administered through medicine, placebo can be provided through fake surgery. The placebo has an effect on the dependent variable. What has been discovered is that placebo treatments can have a dramatic effect on health and behaviour. It is a mysterious phenomena in medicine, and I believe shows the power the mind has over the body. It is believed to be psychosomatic for this reason. If an individual believes they are being treated, it is enough to cause a positive response upon the body.
A study into the ‘placebo effect’ provided by the University of Havard, provided impressive results, with 30 – 40% receiving relief from the ‘placebo’ treatment (http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n09/mente/placebo1_i.htm). How you interpret these findings requires further research, for the American Cancer Society states, that placebos provide relief for about 1 in 3 patients, but is only short term and is thought to be connected to the body’s own natural method of dealing with pain, they also state that placebo treatment does not treat the disease (http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/TreatmentTypes/placebo-effect) What I found interesting is the use of the term relief which is mentioned by both sites, and we must remember that relief does not mean cure. However, a study into depression found that 79% of patients remained well for 12 weeks after placebo treatment, compared to 93% who received anti-depressants. You might think initially
that the anti-depressants had a higher success rate. Yes they did, but, nearly 80% were better with NO treatment, this I find astounding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo) . This may be due to the simple fact that depression is how you feel and is often psychological, and can explain why placebo treatment can show better results than opposed to treating an actual disease, for placebo effect is considered psychosomatic. These findings in relation to depression suggests that 80% of depressed patients may not need medicinal treatment, and addressing their state of mind through psychological/counselling intervention may be enough, and what is left is 13% requiring medical intervention, for their depression maybe biological in nature (this is my drawn assumption) Another study which focused on the impact of placebo with regards to ‘fake’ surgery, for patients being treated for ischaemic heart disease, they were anaethatised, but only cut and sown together, found 80% improvement in the patients, more surprising in this study was discovering only 40% improvement in those who actually received corrective surgery (http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n09/mente/placebo1_i.htm). Impressive!!!
Placebo treatment can also have negative effect on patients. Where they suffer side effects from ‘treatment’, and no improvement to their actual health. This is called nocebo.
The ‘placebo effect’ is a bit of a nuisance in clinical research. In the scientific community the ‘placebo effect’ is real, and when conducting trials for new medical treatment, a placebo is often used. It speaks volumes in itself that it is allowed considering ethics, there is much scientific evidence (such as above) to justify giving patients medicine with absolutley no active ingredients to treat whatever condition under investigation, and possibly depriving them from treatment that may possibly save their lives.
Considering experimental research, the ‘placebo effect’ raises many questions. If a significant result is obtained in both treatment and placebo, is it then really significant? It is why in much research that three groups are tested; treatment, placebo and no treatment. And even then we can be left in a muddle. Consider this, if both placebo and treatment are significant, and treatment group has a higher success rate, is it down to the actual treatment? It could be that yes the treatment had an effect, but could it also be the placebo, where the impact of belief and faith that you are being treated is still playing a role in the actual treatment group. It is why in research comparisons are made between treatment and placebo groups. Comparisons are also made between the placebo group and the no treatment group to understand the magnitude of the placebo effect.
Considering all of this the placebo effect is real, and although a nuisance in clinical research, I believe it must be considered seriously in current treatment and new treatment. If THE SAME or similar benefits can be gained without giving medicine, this is especially important considering psychology and mental illness, considering the nature of why it is believed to work – psychosomatic. It is a better alternative for individuals for possibly long term health, and for society considering cost. There is so much more to this topic than can be covered in this blog, further reading is required for a deeper understanding.
Hi Kat,
Here are the links for my comments this week;
Regards,
Fflur
Have you ever wondered how far a penguin can poo? Well I can tell you the answer is 40cm. Another fact for you, lap dancers earn more tips when they’re ovulating!!!! These facts, although funny, are not even that interesting, and some might say that they are pointless (although I’m sure the all male research team that discovered the latter would disagree). What possible benefit is there to society from these findings?……I can’t think of any!!!!! What is interesting is that your tax contributions probably paid for these research findings and many other ‘pointless’ research findings out there.
Basic Research versus Applied Research is an area of much controversy. Basic research, which is also referred to as pure research is driven by curiosity and interest, and it is what drives scientists, researchers and us – future psychologists! We seek knowledge and understanding, and basic research is motivated by this. Consider the following questions; How did the earth begin? How does environment determine who we are? How does genetics determine who we are? These are all examples of questions derived from curiosity and interest, and it also is the type of questions basic research address. Outcome and findings for these examples as we can imagine are invaluable and is a stepping stone to further applied research. BUT, the first facts stated in the first paragraph of this blog are also examples of basic research! Ask most scientists, and they will agree that a basic understanding of all science is necessary for progress. It is argued that basic research is the foundation for applied science, and this foundation is necessary and must take place initially for expansion.
Applied research is more relevant to our modern world. Its main goal is to make the world a better place – for the human race ( had to state this, as lets face it, as humans we are selfish and put our own needs before those of other creatures). Applied research focuses on solving problems, rather than just aquiring knowledge as basic research does. It addresses such questions as; which treatment is best for breast cancer? cure for cancer? Alternative heating solutions to decrease pollution. Vaccinations and antibiotics are the result of applied research, these were exceptional research findings that has resulted in millions (probably billions) of lives being saved. Many scientist believe that too much money is wasted on basic research, and there should be some intervention to direct funding towards applied research. And the government agrees, as they are preparing to ‘crack down’ on irrelevant reasearch, and funding will be provided depending on possible impact of the research. Some scientists and academics are against these plans, stating that invaluable findings we have now are because of basic research. And as Dr Smoot of LBNL would argue “People can not see the future well enough to predict what’s going to develop from basic research. If we only did applied research, we would still be making better spears.”
In conclusion to this blog, I believe that there are many problems facing the world currently, such as pollution, war, illness and so on, and a shift should take place in ensuring that government funding (tax payers contribution) is directed to applied research, so that hopefully a solution is found. Considering this, basic research and applied research work together, and the initial foundation that some basic research provides is and has been invaluable. It has been vital for advancement of scientific knowledge. I also believe that government plans to crack down and only fund research in consideration of possible impact of findings is the right track to take, and hopefully there will be strict guidelines for these fundings, but also an open mind for all possible findings that can be found from the research (although I also agree with what, Dr Smoot says………but someone has to draw the line). Gregor Mendel conducted basic research studying pea plants, which who would have thought then provided us with the knowledge and understanding we have about Genetics and DNA, whoever has the final decision in reference to funding allocation should have George Mendel tattooed on their hand as a reminder 😉 We dont want to miss out on such findings, but an end is needed for waste of time and pointless research – I don’t think that how far a penguin can poo will ever lead us to extraoridinary life saving findings :-).
Hi Kat,
Here are my comments for this week. I followed the procedure instructed for us to attach links, and my internet crashed while I was linking the last one, and I tried to retrieve but it was lost so I had to go about attaching my links through accessing ‘history’ through my browser, I tried to access through ‘comments I’ve made’ and none of them came up. I’m not sure whether you will be able to open in the same way, I’m sorry if this is a nuisance to you, if there’s a problem let me know as I’ve definatley commented and took me over an hour to find them all.
19/02/12 Blog: Should psychologists use psychology students for research?
Regards,
Fflur
The ‘file drawer effect/problem’, termed by Robert Rosenthal in 1979, is quite easy to define, it refers to the suggestion that some researchers file away and never publish studies that have not been able reject the null hypothesis. It suggests that only positive-outcome research are reported, and negative outcome research are filed away and forgotten. Negative outcome research not only includes research with no or little significance, but also research that may have found something else of significance but was not expected or goes against researchers hypothesis, all findings should be available, for it is essential for scientific progress. Other explanations for negative outcome research being filed away are; small studies which maybe seen as irrelevant, when effect size is small, if there are flaws in research, for all of which, common sense will imply that reliability and validity are questionable. Another factor for escalating this problem is when the research has much financial funding and interest, for which findings may have negative implication to the sponsor, or public well being is at risk (this could go anywhere from here if you are a believer in conspiracy theories……).
The worst case scenario of this problem is that published and reported research are the 5% that are type 1 errors if p level is set at .05, and the other insignificant 95% are hidden away in a filing cabinet, considering this extreme scenario and the fact that maybe some new findings are not reported and published, how can science possibly progress, we will never become closer to the truth. What is concerning, is that what is reported could be a misrepresentation of the subject under investigation, nevertheless bear in mind this is the worst case scenario possible.
This is especially problematic when considering meta analysis. If using data from previously performed research and integrating them for new analysis and research, how can this be valid, reliable and representative, if all that is analysed is significant biased results.
Another problematic aspect of the ‘file drawer effect’ could be that negative outcome research maybe filed away, but future research maybe tweaked if variables that caused insignificant findings were identified, and result in future significant findings. This links with Karl Poppers belief that researchers protect their hypothesis, and it is why he came up with the criterion of falsification (which is another topic for which I will go no further).
There has been little research into this problem. However, a study by Martinson et al in 2005, discovered that 6% of researchers admitted to having “tossed out data because the information contradicted their previous research.”, so therefore we must conclude that the problem does exist.
Unfortunatley there is not a definite solution to this problem, but there are suggestions to reduce and cope with the problem which are; better powered studies, where bias in meta-analysis is reduced; larger studies to enhance reliabililty; better research standards; assessment of research by trained professionals to reduce reasons for research being ‘filed away’. Many prominent journals now require that all research are registered before study takes place, and separate journals created for negative results, so therefore whether findings are significant or not there is a record of the research, it also enforces guideline for accurate reporting. This is hoped to reduce the ‘file drawer problem’, and will also indirectly address some of the previous mentioned methods to reduce the problem. Although research suggests that these initiatives have not been entirely successful, it is a start, and is better that the problem is addressed than ignored.
Hi Kat,
These are my comments for this week, hope you enjoy;
Regards,
Fflur
When establishing validity in reference to research, we need to ask “is the research measuring what it intended to measure?” We must be sure that the research is measuring what is intended. This is very important, as we have to consider that measuring such things as intelligence, depression, esteem and so on, can not be measured or observed directly as they are hypothetical, and we have to develop other methods of measuring.
In a research study as a whole, validity has two crucial parts which are internal and external validity. The aim of many research studies is to state “this is what happened and this is what it means”, if there are any doubts here, then there is a threat to validity. In research we often search for a cause and effect between variables, for example we study that if we eat less we loose weight, providing that there is no other explanation for effect, the research is valid, if we have doubts and there may be other explanations for the effect, this is a threat to the internal validity of the research. Extraneous (additional) variables in a research are often a threat to internal validity, and they are often numerous in studies. They become a threat when they influence the variables being investigated, and are referred to as confounding variables, and can sometimes offer alternative explanations to findings. Therefore, it is important for researchers to identify confounding variables. Confounding variables can be categorised into three groups; (1)Environmental variables, when environment between treatment conditions are noticeably different, for example one treatment in a warm room and other in a cold room, or different times of the day and so on, this category can be a confounding variable for all research designs; (2)Assignment bias, if research has different groups of people for each treatment, then each group may have different characteristics, for example one group could be younger than the other or that there are more males in one group and so on; (3) the third category is concerned with confounding variables to a research design which studies a group of participants over a period of time and can be; history, when events outside of the study has an impact on the research; maturation, when participants change physiogically or psychologically, this is especially a concern when studying children and the elderly; instrumentation, when instrument of measurement changes with time, this is often the researcher who can become more or less efficient, or equipment can become more advanced and so on; testing effects, such as practice and fatigue and finally regression, this is a mathematical phenomenon where extreme scores regress towards the mean.
To establish external validity, research findings should be able to be generalised outside the study, if not this could be considered a threat to the external validity of the research. Most common threats to external validity can be categorised into three groups; (1)generalise across participants or subjects, are participants representative of the general public, more often they are not, research is often subject to students and volunteers, and these are not representative of the general public, research suggests that students and volunteers have higher IQ than the general public, more educated and so on; (2)generalise across features of a study, threats can include novelty effect, suggesting that actual study can cause arousal and excitement that may incur different results and reactions than real world. Other threats in this category include experimenter characteristics that can affect results, such as age, class, friendliness and so on; (3) generalise across features of the measures, threats include sensitisation, means of measurement, where one form of measurement produces results to another form of measurement and so on.
There are confounding variables that are a threat to both internal and external validity. Special attention must be given as the threat can be twice as damaging. Experimenter bias is one, where the researcher predicts the outcome and influences settings and procedures to accomplish the outcome. For example, may encourage one group of participants where experimenter expects results to be high, and discourage other group where results are expected low. Another threat to both is demand characteristics where researchers have suggested what the findings will be and somehow tried to influence the outcome. I believe both these are detrimental and should be avoided at all costs, and as future researchers should be identified in existing and potential research.
Establishing internal and external validity is crucial for a successful and respected research, if both criterions are met, and then findings are influential. Researchers aim to produce and maintain validity, and it is why before research is carried out confounding variables are identified and dealt with. It is often a delicate matter of balance and elimination. Sometimes dealing with one confounding variable can increase the effects of another and sometimes introduce another. Often is the case, by increasing internal validity of a research study decreases external validity, for example if studying the effects of colour on mood, where all other extraneous variables are controlled such as time, temperature, age, gender and so on are similar, then external validity is threatened, because findings would be hard to generalise to the general public and real world. Consider the opposite, where researchers aim to maximise external validity by providing a natural/real world environment allows for possible confounding variables to enter research and threaten internal validity. This often happens in research, it is near impossible to not have any confounding variables in a research, but what must be decided is which is most important for that research, internal or external validity, often is the case that one must have priority over the other. We must decide which is important for relevant research.
Hi,
Here are my comments for week 10/11,
Do Qualitative Research Methods Violate The Scientific Method?
Regards,
Fflur
The answer to this question is YES, empiricism and rationalism are opposing and do disagree with each other. Nevertheless, although they disagree and are opposing, they also compliment each other, as both are used and are a part of the scientific method of acquiring knowledge. Both are flawed in someway, and it is one reason why the scientific method uses both, for often the flaw of one is addressed by the strength of the other.
The rational method, often referred to as rationalism, refers to gaining knowledge through intellect and reason, it draws logical conclusion, and makes sense. You draw conclusions based on facts or assumptions which are presumed to be true. Sounds straightforward, but it does have its setbacks and limitations. For example: all little girls like dolls and Sophie is a little girl, therefore Sophie likes dolls. Logic tells us that this may not be true. This is because one of the statements is not accurate and may not be true. We can not accept answers to be true based on just logic, we need evidence that has been tested and verified. Rationalism may be used in the absence of evidence, it is a crucial and critical part of the scientific method.
The empirical method, often referred to as empiricism, is knowledge gained through our senses, we make observations and draw conclusions, it relies on evidence to reach the truth as opposed to rationalism. We acquire knowledge everyday simply just by observing what is happening around us. However, we can not believe all that we see, our senses can deceive us, what we see our feel can get distorted by our beliefs, feelings and knowledge. We must remember too that the empirical method can take time and can also be dangerous. A good example of this was given in a stats lecture last year by Jesse Martin, consider whether you wanted to find out if mushrooms growing in your back garden were poisonous, empirically you eat them to find out, this not recommended, you could die!!!! The rational method would be a better alternative as you use logic and common sense, which would draw you to the fact ‘that some mushrooms are poisonous’.
The scientific method requires empirical verification, albeit a more structured form of empiricism. Rationalism might draw us to a conclusion that makes sense and is logical, but unless it is empirically tested it can not be accepted. Essentially both are used so that science can progress, and although one disagrees with the other both are needed and compliment each other.
prpfe76 