1. Researchers Langer and Rodin (1976) were interested in improving the quality of life for nursing home residents. They reasoned that in many nursing homes, residents had very little say in how they spent their days. The researchers suspected that having more control over their daily schedules would improve the quality of life for residents. They studied two floors of a nursing home: Floor 6 and Floor 3. Administrators at the nursing home assured them that people on the two floors had very similar levels of medical problems and were of similar ages.
For a baseline period, Langer and Rodin asked nurses and doctors to record the health and activity levels of the residents on both floors. Then they introduced an intervention: Residents on Floor 6 listened to a "pep talk" about all of the activities and services they could take advantage of if they chose to. In addition, residents on this floor were offered a potted plant and were told that they could take care of it however they wanted to. And they were offered a new movie night option: They could choose either Tuesday or Friday, or no movie, depending on their preference. In contrast, residents on Floor 3 listened to a speech, too; while this speech was positive, it did not emphasize taking personal control. In addition, residents on this floor were offered a potted plant, but they were told that the nurses would take care of it. And residents on this floor were offered a new movie night as well, but they were told which night they would be watching the movie.
Eighteen months later, the doctors and nurses rated the residents' health again. Although residents of the two floors were equal at the baseline measurement, the residents of Floor 3 showed dramatic decreases in health and activity level at the follow-up. In addition, residents of Floor 6 actually showed an improvement in mental alertness and activity level. Twice as many residents of Floor 3 had died after 18 months, compared with the residents of Floor 6.
a) Determine whether the study is a nonequivalent control group design, an interrupted time-series design, or a nonequivalent groups interrupted time-series design. EXPLAIN WHY!!!
b) What causal statement is the researcher trying to make, if any? Is it appropriate? If the researcher is making a causal statement, use the results and design to interrogate the study's internal validity.
c) What (if any) internal validity flaws do you notice? Redesign the study to remove the flaw, i.e., describe how you would change the study to address the internal validity problem.
d) Ask one question to address construct validity.
e) Ask one question to address external validity.