then ask the parents and teachers to complete the same measures they actually did use in their study. This would have been faster as well, because they wouldn’t have had to wait 4 months to get the follow-up data. So the question is, why go to all that time, trouble, and expense? There’s a very good reason. Let’s say they did the easier study and just compared kids who already had a PSII to the kids without one. Do you think there might be any important differences between families who had a PSII and ones that didn’t?
PSY 250 MPW How might those families be different (besides having a PSII or not)? Do you think those things might affect how well the kids do in school? If so, we would call those differences in the families confounds . We’ll get into this topic in a future Module. 2 points I do think there would have been differences. Some have different environments at home so going into the depths of the study that Weis and Cerankosky did to understand the boys themselves was a great step in collecting the right data. 6. Check out this news story about this article: - schoolwork-of.html . The very first sentence in the story is this: “Researchers are trying to tell parents something about what kinds of video games children should be playing and how much time they should spend doing it.” Can you find any place in the Weis and Cerankoski article where they actually tell parents how much time they should let their kids play video games? Another example of the dangers of having the press write about research! 1 point page 469 but it’s not specific on time just limiting time on video games 7. What is your reading difficulty estimate for this article , on a 1 = easy to 5 = very difficult scale? 1 point 3 8. How long did it take you to read the article (approximately)? 1 point around 45 minutes
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 4 pages?
- Fall '08
- American Psychological Association, Weis