Analysis, Interpretation and Reporting Portfolio

Assessment overview

 

Analysis, Interpretation and Reporting Portfolio

This assessment takes the form of a portfolio submission on the analysis, interpretation and presentation of 3 differently designed research projects.  Your task will be to demonstrate an ability to carry out an analysis of the project data using SPSS, the interpretation of the findings and to present your knowledge of the project outcomes.

Each design analysis will “presented” by combining a powerpoint/prezi/keynote presentation on each of the three studies and your explanation of it recorded using Touchcast software (www.touchcast.com) or PowePoint recording software.  

Key outcomes for the Assessment 

1. Correct Analysis of the data using SPSS

2. Interpretation of the Descriptive Statistics 

3. APA write up of the interpretion of the inferential analysis

The final stage is to construct a narrative that explains the your knowledge of the analysis and its impact on the Hypotheses.  Therefore, you have been given an overview of three research projects that have increasingly complex designs.     

You Must Include 

3 slides (in powerpoint) for each analysis so in total 9 slides.   Each set of three slides have the same tasks to complete for the different analysis.   

Additionally the slides will be linked with a touchcast narrative and some click out links that evidence of your knowledge. 

You have to produce content for three slides which contains:  

1. Evidence of the data input and analysis in SPSS 

2. A set of descriptive statistics and a graph of the means

3. A full APA formatted write up of the inferential analyses of the data

In the presentation narrative (story) you will describe how the content powerpoint slide. 

 

 

 

 

Guide to the content of the Slides 

Slide 1. 

1. What design is the project and how do you input that into SPSS (click out to the evidence, such as the textbook web page or a Moodle page; additionally you can click out to the data sheet if you wished). 

2. What analysis did you carry out? (click out to the evidence of how you made that decision)

Slide 2. 

1. What are the descriptive statistics for each condition and how do they vary?

2. What does the data pattern in the graph tell us?

Slide 3.  

1. Read the APA formatting out the reader and report if the tests are significant (click out to a guide to APA formatting to evidence your knowledge).  

2. What impact has your findings had on the hypothesis?

 

Project outlines follow below, remember to check back on the example touchcast on the moodle page.   

 

 

 

 

Project One Vignette which utilises a one way between subjects design.  

A Psychologist was interested in the use of identification techniques and their impact on the performance of Police Officers.  The “Eyewitness” literature predicts that “task specific memory techniques” should improve performance.  Officers were randomly split into one of three groups; one group used general mnemonic imagery (GMI) another used situation perspective (SP) and the third using Task Specific Rehearsal (TSR).  The following day the participants completed a set of realistic simulated suspect identifications. The cumulative person identification scores for all the participants were evaluated via a questionnaire.

This is the data collected by the researcher 

Table 1: Recall scores for individuals in the 3 memory groups.

GMI SP TSR

65 22 86

58 28 81

59 25 92

58 34 67

49 33 88

59 32 89

52 36 87

53 38 81

59 48 92

61 37 83

58 36 81

48 39 76

 

The studies hypothesis was that there will be a significant difference in the identification score of those in the Task specific rehearsal group when compared to the other techniques.   

 

Study Two

 

A study was designed to test the belief that the credibility of a witness to a crime interacted with the accuracy of that witness’s statement resulting in greater inaccuracies in recall of experimental participants.  Participants watched a 2 minute video of a reconstructed crime. They were then asked to read an eyewitness statement that either contained an accurate (ACC) description of the video content or an inaccurate (INACC) description of the events shown in the video.  

Participants were also given a statement from a second co-witness which contained information that created the belief that the first eyewitness had either: high, neutral or low social credibility.  Each participant read ONE of the potential 6 combinations of the 3 co-witness statements by the 2 accuracy conditions.

A day later the participants were given a quiz on the event they had seen in the video. The test responses were scores on the percentage of event errors they recalled.

 

Table 2: Error percentage for participants in the 6 experimental conditions.

High Credibility 

ACC       INACC Low Credibility

ACC       INACC Neutral Credibility

ACC       INACC

98            55 85            62 55            53

85            56 78            58 56             52

86            33 68           48 54             54

92            42 72           51 52             55

90            52 76           47 53             58

91            48 72           45 57             60

85             37 68            54 59             55

86              38 70            41 56            51

87              42 72            42 57            50

88              56 73            41 58            48

 

The Hypotheses are 

1. There will be a significant main effect of the credibility of the type of witness on the amount of misinformation recalled  

2. There will a significant main effect for the type of witness statement on the amount of misinformation recalled. 

3. There will be a significant interaction between the credibility of the witness and the statement accuracy on the amount of misinformation recalled. 

Study three 

A Psychologist was interested in impression formation within Social Media sites. Her hypothesis is that the personality trait extroversion is liked to age and predicts the amount of self-related social media content posted on SM sites.  She looked at the link between age, extroversion and number of “selfies” posted in a 6 week period on Instagram.  

Age Extroversion Score Amount of Selfies posted on Instagram

55 40 46

43 45 79

57 52 33

26 62 63

22 31 20

32 28 18

26 0 11

29 83 97

40 55 63

30 32 46

34 47 21

44 45 71

49 60 59

22 13 44

34 17 30

47 85 80

48 38 45

48 61 26

22 26 33

24 133 177

50 29 50

49 60 54

49 47 73

48 18 19

29 16 36

58 36 31

24 24 71

21 12 15

29 32 40

45 46 61

28 26 45

37 40 42

44 46 57

22 44 34

38 13 26

24 25 47

34 43 42

26 41 44

26 42 59

25 36 27