Unit 2: Research Methods in Human Development 12 hrs

Data collection techniques - Interviewing methods; Developmental testing: Observational

methods; Parent teacher rating scales; Research design: Epidemiological design, Twin, and
adoption studies, Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional Research design; Ethics in life span
research; Current research trends

(book 4)

DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES

CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION

Type Main Characteristics Advantages Disadvantages

Self-report: diary,
interview, or questionnaire
Participants are asked about
some aspect of their lives;
questioning may be highly
structured or more flexible.
Ex: eating habit while in
depression, parents dairy on
child’s behavior
Can provide first-hand
information about a
person’s life, attitudes, or
opinions.
Participant may not
remember information
accurately or may distort
responses in a socially
desirable way; how
question is asked or by
whom may affect answer

Naturalistic observation
People are observed in their
normal setting, with no
attempt to manipulate
behavior
Provides good description Lack of control; observer
of behavior; does not bias.
subject people to unnatural
settings that may distort
behavior.

Laboratory observation
Participants are observed in
the laboratory, with no
attempt to manipulate
behavior.
Provides good descriptions; Observer bias; controlled
offers greater control than situation can be artificial.
naturalistic observation,
since all participants are
observed under same
controlled conditions

Behavioral and
performance measures
Participants are tested on
abilities, skills, knowledge
competencies, or physical
responses.
Provides objectively
measurable information;
avoids subjective
distortions.
Cannot measure attitudes or
other nonbehavioral
phenomena; results may be
affected by extraneous
factors.

Forms of Data Collection

Common ways of gathering data include self-reports (verbal reports by study participants),
observation of participants in laboratory or natural settings, and behavioral or performance
measures. Depending in part on time and financial constraints, researchers may use one or
more of these data collection techniques in any research design. Qualitative research tends to
depend heavily on interviews and on observation in natural settings, whereas quantitative
research makes use of more structured methods. Currently there is a trend toward increased
use of selfreports and observation in combination with more objective measures.
Self-Reports: Diaries, Interviews, Questionnaires The simplest form of selfreport is a
diary or log. Participants may be asked, for example, to record what they eat each day or the
times when they feel depressed. In studying young children, parental self-reports —diaries,
journals, interviews, or questionnaires—are commonly used, often together with other
methods such as video or audio recording. Parents may be recorded playing with their babies
and then may be shown the recording and asked to explain why they reacted as they did.

In an interview , researchers ask questions about attitudes, opinions, or behavior. To reach

more people and protect their privacy, researchers sometimes distribute a printed or online
questionnaire , which participants fill out and return.
By questioning a large number of people, investigators can get a broad picture—at least of
what the respondents say they believe or do or have done.

However, people willing to participate in interviews or fill out questionnaires may not
accurately represent the population as a whole. Furthermore, heavy reliance on self-reports
may be unwise because people may not have thought about what they feel and think or
honestly may not know. People may forget when and how events actually took place or may
consciously or unconsciously distort their replies to fit what is considered socially desirable.

How a question is asked, and by whom, can affect the answer. When questioned about
potentially risky or socially disapproved behavior, such as sexual habits and drug use,
respondents may be more candid in responding to a computerized survey than to a paper-and-
pencil survey.

Naturalistic and Laboratory Observation Observation takes two forms: naturalistic

observation and laboratory observation . In naturalistic observation, researchers look at
people in real-life settings. The researchers do not try to alter behavior or the environment;
they simply record what they see. In laboratory observation, researchers observe and record
behavior in a controlled environment, such as a laboratory. By observing all participants
under the same conditions, investigators can more clearly identify any differences in behavior
not attributable to the environment.

Both kinds of observation can provide valuable descriptions of behavior, but they have
limitations. For one, they do not explain why people behave as they do, though the observers
may suggest interpretations. Then, too, an observer’s presence can alter behavior. When
people know they are being watched, they may act differently. Finally, there is a risk of
observer bias : the researcher’s tendency to interpret data to fit expectations or to emphasize
some aspects and minimize others.

Behavioral and Performance Measures For many kinds of research, investigators use more
objective measures of behavior or performance instead of, or in addition to, self-reports or
observation. Tests and other behavioral and neuropsychological measures may be used to
assess abilities, skills, knowledge, competencies, or physiological responses, such as heart
rate and brain activity. Although these measures are less subjective than self-reports or
personal observation, such factors as fatigue and self-confidence can affect results.
CLINICAL AND NON-CLINICAL INTERVIEW METHODS
Introduction

Interview methods typically involve face-to-face interaction between a researcher and a

participant, with the researcher asking questions and the participant giving verbal answers. In
child development studies, interview methods have been used with various types of
participants, most notably children, parents, and teachers, to investigate many aspects of
development, and to address a wide range of theoretical and applied issues.

Interviews versus other methods for developmental research

The use of interview methods to investigate children’s cognitive development can be

contrasted with a variety of other research methods, including observations of children in
natural settings, reports from teachers and parents, psychometric tests of intelligence, and
experimental techniques. However, the distinction between interviews and experimental tasks
is not entirely clearcut. Once children are old enough to use and understand language
reasonably proficiently, experimental studies on their cognitive development will often
incorporate aspects of the interview method, in that the researcher will ask questions in the
context of a structured, specially designed task that will typically involve both verbal and
non-verbal activities. Similarly, while interview methods tend to be more constrained,
focused, and artificial than observational methods, the data obtained from observations of
children interacting with adults (especially in classroom settings) will often include question-
and-answer sequences that have much in common with those that occur in interviews.

Piaget and his interview method

Historically, interview methods for studying cognitive development have their origins in the
work of Jean Piaget (1896–1980). Piaget’s central aim in interviewing children was to
uncover and describe their cognitive structures (i.e., the general principles underpinning their
knowledge, reasoning, and understanding). He therefore adopted an approach that had much
in common with that used by psychiatrists in diagnostic interviews, and that has therefore
become known as the ‘clinical (interview) method’. He wanted to encourage children to talk
freely about particular topics, so rather than asking a standard set of questions to all children,
he based his questions on the individual child’s responses to previous questions.

Subsequent research on cognitive development has been heavily influenced by Piaget’s

pioneering work, so interview methods have continued to figure prominently. There has been
an increasing tendency, though, to follow a pre-determined script in which the questions are
the same (or at least similar) for all children. This type of interview method is generally
referred to as ‘non-clinical’, but the distinction between clinical and non-clinical methods is
probably best regarded as being a matter of degree.

Clinical interview method

A flavor of the clinical interview method can be gained from the extract in Table 1 in which a
6-year-old child is being interviewed to investigate whether young children regard the sun as
being animate and capable of engaging in purposeful activities.

Piaget (1929) emphasized that in conducting such interviews, the researcher needs to steer a
middle course to avoid the two dangers of “. . . systematisation due to preconceived ideas and
incoherence due to the absence of any directing hypothesis”. In other words, the researcher
has to try to avoid leading the child in a particular direction through suggestion, while at the
same time making the most of opportunities to formulate and test hypotheses about the nature
of the child’s understanding. Similarly, in interpreting children’s answers, it is important to
avoid the two extremes of assuming either that all answers are ‘pure gold’ (i.e., can be taken
entirely at face value), or that they are all ‘dross’ (i.e., are of no value whatsoever). Instead,
Piaget advises researchers to consider carefully the status of individual responses, by being
alert to the distinctions amongst five main types of response (see Table 2).

In Piaget’s view, the first two types of response (answers at random and suggested
convictions) should be discounted since they are uninformative regarding the nature of
children’s thinking. He regarded spontaneous convictions as the most informative type of
response, although liberated convictions can also be revealing and romancing responses may
be interesting so long as they are interpreted cautiously. The status of responses cannot be
determined by considering individual responses in isolation. Rather, it is necessary to
consider an individual child’s pattern of responses throughout an interview, and to compare
these responses to those of other children of the same and different ages, as well as to
observations of spontaneous speech. For example, Piaget argues that random answers and
suggested convictions are typically unstable, and so they can be identified if a child changes
answers when questions are repeated in different guises or when counter-suggestions are
introduced.

A counter-suggestion is a comment or question that challenges the child’s answer by

highlighting a potential contradiction, and that is designed to counteract the possible
suggestive influence of an earlier question. For instance, in the extract in Table 1, the
interviewer challenges the child’s claim that the sun follows people by asking what happens
when two people go in opposite directions. Piaget argues that if it were simply the nature of
the interviewer’s initial question (“When you are out for a walk what does the sun do?”) that
had led the child to reply in animistic terms, then the child would be likely to change his
answers when faced with a potential contradiction. In this case, though, the child persists with
a similar line of argument, so Piaget concludes that the answers reflect spontaneous
convictions (i.e.,
thinking that is systematic and relatively stable, albeit erroneous).
Non-clinical interview methods

Non-clinical interview methods are more structured than the clinical interview method in that
the researcher follows a more standard protocol. The degree of structure and standardization
varies from study to study, depending on such factors as the topic under investigation, the
children’s age, and the researcher’s aims. In most cases, the researcher will try to present the
same basic set of questions to all the participants, and in reporting the study will specify the
nature of and rationale for any variations.

As in clinical interviews, the questions in non-clinical interviews are usually designed to test
the researcher’s hypotheses about the nature of children’s thought processes. However, the
way in which particular questions will be used to test hypotheses is worked out in advance
and is used to guide the design of the interview protocol, rather than being worked out ‘on
line’ as the
interview progresses. For example, in order to investigate children’s theory of mind, Perner,
Leekam, & Wimmer (1987) asked 3- and 4-year-olds a series of questions about a scenario in
which John puts some chocolate in one location (e.g., a drawer in the living room), but his
mother transfers it to another location (e.g., the kitchen cupboard) while he is away at the
playground. On the basis of previous research, Perner et al. hypothesized that 3-year-olds
have a fundamental conceptual inability to attribute false beliefs to another person, and
therefore
that they will give incorrect answers to the test question:

When John comes home where will he look for his chocolate?

That is, they will say that John will look in the kitchen cupboard, where the chocolate really
is, rather than in the living-room drawer, where he falsely believes it to be. Since incorrect
answers might reflect difficulties in remembering or understanding key aspects of the story
rather than in reasoning about false beliefs, some additional control questions were included
to test this
alternative hypothesis:

Where did John put the chocolate in the beginning?

Where did John’s mother put John’s part of the chocolate?
Where was John when mother put it there?
So did John see her put it there?

Thus, as in clinical interviews, children’s answers to a single question are not taken at face
value. Instead, alternative interpretations are evaluated by asking a series of carefully
constructed questions. However, in non-clinical interviews, the questions are typically
planned in advance as part of the design of the study and are the same for all participants,
rather than being formulated in the course of the interview for each individual child.

DEVELOPMENTAL TESTING

Introduction

Developmental testing refers to the assessment of infants’ or children’s abilities across a

number of domains in relation to their age, through the use of standardized tasks and
procedures. Although certain aspects of traditional intelligence are usually measured,
developmental testing entails a more comprehensive approach, with multiple areas of child
functioning, such as motor and social development, also being assessed. As its name implies,
such testing endeavors to capture the child’s behavioral status at a particular point in time,
recognizing that development is a dynamical process by which the normal child’s abilities
become increasingly more complex.

A historical overview

European pioneers

As the ‘Father of mental testing’, Francis Galton (1822–1911) first constructed simple tests of
memory, motor, and sensory functions in England in the late 19th century in order to
differentiate between high and low achievers. At around the same time, Charles Darwin
(1809–1882) suggested that studying early behavior might shed light on understanding the
pattern of human development. His work inspired baby biographers, such as Wilhelm Preyer
(and Millicent Shinn, 1858–1940, in the USA), who demonstrated that a regular sequence of
behavior characterized the human infant, but that individual differences in rates of
development were also important. In France, the challenge of identifying and treating the
mentally deficient led people like Jean-Marc Itard (1775–1838), Etienne Esquirol (1772–
1840), Edouard Sequin (1812–1880), and especially Alfred Binet, to construct a means for
diagnosing and identifying the mentally retarded who might benefit from special education
(Kelley & Surbeck, 1991).

By the beginning of the 20th century then, the science of mental testing was established.
However, the early tests were predicated on the belief that intelligence was solely determined
and fixed by genetics, and displayed via sensory functioning. Binet and Theodore Simon
(1873–1961) are credited with developing the first test of mental ability in 1905 that
attempted to measure judgment, reasoning, and comprehension in school-age children. While
formulated around a century ago, their work convinced others that such tests should follow
standard procedures for administration, should be simple in their scoring, and should provide
results that distinguish the normal from the delayed (Kelley & Surbeck, 1991).

North American pioneers

In the early 1900s, a child study movement began in the United States, led by G. Stanley Hall
(1844–1924). Two of his students, Henry Goddard (1866–1957) and Fred Kuhlmann (1876–
1941), translated Binet’s scales for American use, advocated early diagnosis, and extended
the test items downward into infancy. Institutes of child welfare for the study of child
development
sprang up at land-grant universities across the States, with another of Hall’s students, Arnold
Gesell, becoming the first to explore systematically the developmental change and growth of
normal children from birth to age 5. Like many of his predecessors, Gesell believed that
biology predetermined growth and development, and took a maturational approach to the
‘whole child.’ That is, instead of a focus on intelligence, he presented a developmental
schedule for the normal
child that covered motor, language, adaptive, and personal-social behavior. Along with tests
designed by his contemporaries at other institutes throughout the country, these normative
scales generated a great deal of research, though initially with respect to their adequacy as
measurement devices.
As it applies to early assessment and testing, cognitive development refers to the child’s
mental abilities and includes the sensorimotor abilities of infancy, such as object
permanence, and the pre-academic skills of childhood, such as concept development.
Psychosocial development includes attachment behavior, peer interaction, temperament,
and adjustment. Language and speech development is comprised of communication
abilities, both receptive and expressive. Physical development includes reflexes and muscle
tone along with fine motor abilities, such as grasping and stacking, and gross motor
abilities, such as walking and climbing. Self-help skills include those that allow for
independent functioning, such as feeding, toileting, and dressing without assistance.

Testing for developmental delays and beyond

In contrast to intelligence testing, which may be done routinely by some school districts, or to
help document giftedness, or solely for research purposes, developmental testing is largely
undertaken in order to determine if an infant or young child is delayed in certain abilities and
may benefit from some type of specialized early intervention. To this end, there are a number
of applications that are served by developmental testing (Gilliam & Mayes, 2000). In
screening, a brief device such as the Denver Developmental Screening Test is used to identify
infants or children who may be at risk for a developmental delay, with a formal assessment to
follow if the results warrant. Indeed, some screening tests, such as the Ages and Stages
Questionnaire, which can be completed by parents as an initial step in early identification, are
now also available.

For placement, the results of developmental or other domain-specific tests are used to
determine whether or not a child is eligible for an early intervention program. A delay in one
or more of the five areas described above is a sufficient criterion in qualifying for early
intervention services. For intervention planning purposes, the child’s IEP or IFSP requires a
statement of the child’s present levels of development in the five areas. Hence, the test results
provide an entry-point for developing an instructional plan to meet individualized goals.
Subsequently, the results of repeated developmental tests may be used for evaluation
purposes, both to determine progress for an individual child, and across children to determine
the effectiveness of an intervention program. Finally, developmental testing is frequently
employed in outcomes-based research, where the impact of ecological factors such as poverty
or nutrition may be assessed.

OBSERVATIONAL METHODS

Often researchers prefer to observe people’s behavior directly rather than asking them
questions about it. One method that many developmentalists favor is naturalistic
observation—observing people in their common, everyday (that is, natural) surroundings
(Pellegrini, 1996). To observe children, this usually means going into homes, schools, or
public parks and playgrounds and carefully recording what they do. Rarely will investigators
try to record every event that occurs; they are usually testing a specifi c hypothesis about one
type of behavior, such as cooperation or aggression, and will focus their attention and data
collection exclusively on acts of this kind. One strength of naturalistic observation is the ease
with which it can be applied to infants and toddlers, who often cannot be studied through
methods that demand verbal skills. A second strength of naturalistic observation is that it
illustrates how people actually behave in everyday life.
However, naturalistic observation also has its limitations. First, some behaviors occur so
infrequently (for example, heroic rescues) or are so socially undesirable (for example,
criminal acts or morally reprehensible behaviors) that they are unlikely to be witnessed by an
unknown observer in the natural environment. Second, many events are usually happening at
the same time in a natural setting, and any (or some combination) of them may affect
people’s behavior. This makes it diffi cult to pinpoint the causes of participants’ actions or of
any developmental trends in behavior. Finally, the mere presence of an observer can
sometimes make people behave differently than they otherwise would. Children may “show
off ” when they have an audience, whereas parents may be on their best behavior, showing a
strong reluctance, for example, to spank a misbehaving child as they normally might. For
these reasons, researchers often attempt to minimize observer infl uence by (1) videotaping
their participants from a concealed location or (2) spending time in the setting before
collecting their “real” data so that the individuals they are observing will grow accustomed to
their presence and behave more naturally.

PARENT AND TEACHER RATING SCALES

Introduction

Rating scales are important research tools; they have not only advantages, but also some
disadvantages. To ensure their advantages, certain challenges have to be confronted. In what
follows, consideration is given to the pros and cons of rating scales and to such challenges as
the application of these research tools to the study of developmental psychopathology.

Advantages
The description of children’s behavior and emotions by raters who know them well has
unique advantages.

Behavior can be sampled in a comprehensive way, based on the whole of a child’s life rather
than a brief observation period. The behavior that is assessed is natural, in that it is not
influenced by the artificial context of an observation or the presence of an unfamiliar
observer. Cognitive as well as behavioral and emotional development can be assessed.
Parents can report, for example, on the early language development of their young children,
with the results reflecting its known course by a particular age (Feldman et al., 2000).
Assessments can be quite brief, with a rating scale taking typically ten to twenty minutes to
complete, and thus allowing large amounts of data to be generated economically.
Standardization is feasible, and therefore
children’s scores can be related to existing population norms. This has been a particular
strength in studies focusing on individual differences rather than the normative course of
development.

Disadvantages

A questionnaire is a device for communication, and many barriers can arise. The wording of
items needs to mean the same things to raters and investigators. This in turn often requires
that the child qualities to be rated must be described in clear and concrete terms. The rating of
depression, for example, risks being interpreted by one rater as referring only to misery, by
another as including irritable outbursts, and by an investigator as present only if there is a
whole complex of associated changes. ‘Frequent tearfulness’ conveys a more precise
significance, but a more restricted one. Minor variations in wording can have major effects
upon the prevalence
of items (Woodward et al., 1989).

Fine and subtle distinctions can often not be made reliably; and the timing of transitions in, or
influences on, development is prone to serious falsification by recall. Terms denoting
frequency and intensity of behaviors are also prone to misunderstanding between investigator
and rater. How often should tantrums occur to be described as ‘frequent’? Expectations vary
greatly between raters, and so do the ratings. Teachers’ ratings are often said to be less
vulnerable to such effects as they have a better professional understanding of the range of
variation. However, the experience of the teacher is not ordinarily reckoned into the results of
questionnaire surveys.

The relationship of the rater with the child change the report that is made. For example, the
impact of a behavior problem upon the parent, rather than the actual severity of the problem,
may generate the rating. More generally, rating scales contain variance that is attributable to
the rater, the setting in which the rating is made (e.g., home or school), and the instrument
used, as well as to the individual child. When this is structurally modeled, it is evident that
scores are far more complex than simply a record of a child (Fergusson, 1997).

For all these reasons, questionnaire ratings lend themselves best to large group studies, and to
longitudinal studies where the raters and settings are constant for an individual child. For
practical purposes (e.g., the selection of children for special educational interventions), they
are valuable as screening measures, but seldom sufficient for the accurate identification of
individuals.

Particular issues arise when parental or teacher ratings are used to capture both the qualities
of the child and those of the child’s social environment. Contamination can result in
misleading interpretations of associations. For example, if a mother’s account of her child’s
depression is exaggerated by her own depression, but taken as evidence for an
intergenerational transmission.

RESEARCH DESIGN
Basic Research Designs
A research design is a plan for conducting a scientific investigation: what questions are to be
answered, how participants are to be selected, how data are to be collected and interpreted,
and how valid conclusions can be drawn. Four basic designs used in developmental research
are case studies, ethnographic studies, correlational studies, and experiments. The first two
designs are qualitative; the last two are quantitative. Each design has advantages and
drawbacks, and each is appropriate for certain kinds of research problems.

General Research Designs

In deciding on a research design, investigators choose a way of setting up a study that permits
them to test their hypotheses with the greatest certainty possible. Two main types of designs
are used in all research on human behavior: correlational and experimental.

EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DESIGNS

Introduction

Epidemiology is the study and analysis of the distribution, patterns and determinants of health
and disease conditions in defined populations such as children. It is a cornerstone of public
health, and shapes policy decisions and evidence-based practice by identifying risk factors for
disease and targets for preventive healthcare.

There has been an increase in the prevalence of chronic diseases and disabilities, such as
asthma, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and childhood cancers. More recently
there has been increasing concern for psychiatric, behavioral, and social disorders of
childhood and a call for new methods to study and reduce these “new” psychosocial
morbidities of childhood and adolescence. Hence epidemiological research helps in finding
the causes of such problems in children.

Observational epidemiological designs is one such research design which have been shaped
by two classic concerns. The first concern is the onset and course of disease, conceived as a
dichotomous variable (you have it or you do not). The second is a focus on risk for the
disease, which may also be dichotomized as present or absent. Although more recent
epidemiological work often investigates outcomes that vary in a continuous fashion (e.g.,
blood pressure, depression), this focus on risk for disease or disorder has shaped much of
epidemiological thinking about study design. The developmental aspects of disease are
captured in epidemiologists’ attention to the distinction between incidence (when a condition
began) and prevalence (current status with regard to the condition), and by attention to the
course of the condition over time. Such attention has led to research designs that foster the
distinction between risks related to onset of the disease or condition and risks related to its
course over time.

Case-comparison design

Within observational epidemiological studies, the fact that some disorders are relatively rare
has made the case-comparison design (previously, but not as accurately, called case-control
design) a particularly efficient method of investigation (Kelsey et al., 1996). In this design,
participants who have the disorder or condition of interest are identified, often through
service providers. Another group that is as comparable as possible in other respects that may
be relevant to the onset or detection of the disease is examined with regard to the presence or
absence of the risk or risks being investigated in the study. Classically, such a study proceeds
by determining, by report or record, differential exposure to assumed risks of the case and
comparison groups. For developmental studies, a group may be selected on a developmental
outcome (e.g., reading disorder) and a comparison group selected who do not have this
outcome.

A key aspect of the epidemiological perspective is attention to the population; the sample
studied should be representative of the population to which generalization of findings is to be
made. This population, then, defines both the case and the comparison groups, thus
effectively controlling for a number of shared risks, whether measured in the study or not.
Such a strategy permits less ambiguous interpretation of findings with regard to the risks that
are the study’s focus.

Attention to unintended or biasing differences between groups is a universal focus of

epidemiological concern. For example, in some groups the likelihood of detection of early
forms of the problem or condition being studied may be increased by a assumed risk factor.
Even agreement to participate in research on a given topic may select atypical subjects with
regard to relevant variables.

An aspect of epidemiological research that is relevant to its application in developmental

research is attention to the rate of development of a given problem or disease over the time
period following the initial exposure to a risk. Thus, in addition to information on average
proportionate increase in a negative outcome, epidemiologists are traditionally concerned
about the effect of exposure duration or, if the exposure has ceased, the time period over
which the negative outcome typically develops.

Longitudinal designs

Observational epidemiological studies of development employ one of several alternative

longitudinal designs. One widely used design is the prospective cohort design, in which a
random or representative sample is drawn at an age at which the earliest risks of interest are
likely to be manifest and followed over a period of time for emergence of, or change in, the
developmental factor of interest. Such a design may include those exposed to a given risk and
a comparison group that is otherwise as similar as possible. This design is not really different
from that used commonly in other behavioral sciences, but with one exception. The
epidemiological concern about the population to which study findings may be generalized
leads to considerable attention to both the original sampling scheme and the extent of, and
potential bias introduced by, attrition from the study.

An alternative panel design selects subjects without regard to the risk or outcome process
being studied, often on the basis of some common institutional or residential frame, such as a
school, hospital, or community. These persons may already have experienced the risks being
studied, and may already have begun to manifest the outcomes. One particularly useful panel
is a birth cohort, in which selection into the study is based on date of birth and residence.
Such a study may include births over a period of days, or weeks, or even years.

Epidemiologists have long appreciated the fact that for a given study three variables, age,
cohort, and period, are generally confounded. Cohort refers to the date of birth, and period
refers to the historical date at which the investigation took place. Developmentalists are
primarily interested in age effects. However, it is not possible to separate developmental
effects from period or cohort effects unambiguously. If a finding from a 1990 study of
children seen originally in 1988 is reported as a developmental change from age 8 to age 10
(an age effect), can we be sure that this change wasn’t different for 10-year-olds born in 1970
(a cohort difference)? Or might it have been affected by the historical climate for 10-year-
olds in 1990 (a period effect)?

Another longitudinal design is a follow-back design, in which subjects are sampled from
some past frame (e.g., a clinical service or special program) and traced forward to assess
some current status. An example of such a design is Robins’ (1966) classic study of boys
with identified antisocial behavior/conduct disorder, traced when they became adults for the
presence of criminal records. A comparison group of boys matched for residential block, but
without a childhood record of antisocial behavior, was employed to show that, although most
antisocial boys did not have adult criminal records, almost no men with criminal records did
not also have a childhood history of antisocial behavior. When such a design can be based
entirely on officially recorded information such as birth, school, child welfare, or criminal
justice records, actual contact with the subjects may not be necessary. Current concerns about
informed consent may rule out some such designs.

https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section7.html

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-abnormalpsych/chapter/descriptive-and-
epidemiological-research/

TWIN AND ADOPTION STUDIES

Introduction
The resemblance between family members has long been of interest. Francis Galton (1822–
1911) suggested that the differential resemblance between monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic
(DZ) twins could be used to determine the extent to which individual differences in measured
characteristics (phenotype) were influenced by inherited factors (heritability). Thereafter, the
study of twins has been one of the main tools to address the nature-nurture issue. This issue
dominated the study of individual differences in child development during the 20th century. It
centered on whether children’s behavior and psychological make-up were determined
primarily by the genes they inherited (nature) or by the environment they experienced
(nurture). These two influences were seen to be mutually exclusive (i.e., either nurture
ornature, but not both, was paramount). The behaviorists (e.g., John Watson) believed that
behavior was shaped
by experience and that genetic predisposition was of less relevance. By contrast, others (e.g.,
Cyril L. Burt, 1883–1971) adopted a position that emphasized the genetic contribution to
intelligence and other aspects of behavior. Burt’s conviction of the significance of genetic
factors would appear to have led him to falsify data (Hearnshaw, 1979). This added to a crisis
of uncertainty about the value of twin studies.

Contemporary studies of twins

More recent twin studies have consistently replicated the findings from earlier ones about the
role of genes and the environment in influencing individual differences in intelligence. It is
no longer necessary to rely on older twin studies with suspect methodology. More recent
studies have been both more systematic in the identification of samples and, with increases in
sample size, have greater power to detect both genetic and environmental influences. There
are now a number of longitudinal twin studies that can address important questions
concerning development and change in children’s abilities. The Louisville Twin Study
provided important and original findings indicating an increase in heritability of intelligence
with age – a finding that ran counter to expectations that with age the cumulative effects of
experience would lead to a reduction in the impact of genetic differences between individuals
(Wilson, 1983).

The field has also matured so that the stark contrast between nature and nurture has been
recast into an appraisal of a range of influences on individual difference in development. In
addition to genetic effects, the environment is now seen as being decomposed into the effects
of those producing resemblance between family members (shared environment) and those
producing differences (non-shared environment). For most aspects of cognition and
personality, it is the
non-shared aspect of the environment that is most salient. A broad generalization is that
similarity in psychological characteristics within families arises from genes and differences
from genes and experience.

The impact of adoption studies

Adoption studies were first systemically applied to IQ, but it was the study of the mental
health of the adopted-away offspring of schizophrenic mothers by Leonard Heston in 1966
that had an important impact. This changed the view of schizophrenia as being engendered by
dysfunctional parenting. While twin studies are a powerful tool for detecting the presence of
genetic effects, adoption studies have most power to detect the effects of shared
environments. In this sense, twin and adoption studies are complementary although, of
course, they can be combined. The reared-apart studies of MZ twin pairs have been the cause
of much public and media interest. If MZ twins have been adopted away from each other and
reared in independent
families, any resemblance represents an index of genetic influences plus any differences in
the prenatal and postnatal environment up to the time of adoption. The largest systematically
studied sample of such reared-apart twins has been assembled by Tom Bouchard in
Minnesota.

One of the most extensive exercises in gathering information on adopted children and their
families repeatedly during development is the Colorado Adoption Project (DeFries, Plomin,
& Fulker, 1994). This study has shown how there is a pattern of changing genetic influences
with age. During cognitive development, genetic influences become more important and
shared environmental influences less so. Indeed, genes are seen as effecting change in
cognitive development, with the environment acting to maintainstability of individual
differences.

CROSS-SECTIONAL AND LONGITUDINAL DESIGNS

Introduction

If developmental psychology is quintessentially the study of ‘change within organisms over

time,’ then which methods should it employ? This is an old question, but is one that remains
in want of a complete answer. Measuring change is very difficult for both conceptual and
statistical reasons.

Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies: different beginnings, different ends

The term ‘cross-section’ is used in the biological sciences to refer to the process of cutting
through one or more dimensions of an organism, usually by identifying layers of tissue types
within such a section. The analogy transfers into psychology to apply to different groups
within the same sample. These groupings might include divisions by gender or social class,
but usually involve comparisons between different age periods. In such designs, individuals
within different age groups are studied just once, and any difference on a dependent measure
is attributed to the hypothesized process of change between them.

It is not difficult to criticize the cross-sectional approach. Differences between age groups
reveal just that – differences – and not the process of developmental change within the child.
However, there is also much to commend in the cross-sectional approach. For example, it
allows us to identify the developmental issues confronting individuals within a particular age
range. There is no point in undertaking a longitudinal study unless we know something about
the timing of changes. Cross-sectional studies help us to identify the age-demarcated
transitions during which one or more changes take place, and individual differences in the
ages at which an ability is acquired. For example, several hundred cross-sectional studies
over the past twenty
years have identified the period around the child’s fourth birthday as the age when the false
belief test is passed for the first time, suggesting that the understanding of the mind
undergoes an important shift at 4 years of age. However, these age differences have led to
many contrasting accounts of the nature of change.
ETHICS IN LIFE SPAN RESEARCH

Should research that might harm its participants ever be undertaken? How can we balance the
possible benefits against the risk of mental, emotional, or physical injury to individuals?

Objections to the study of “Little Albert” as well as several other early studies gave rise to
today’s more stringent ethical standards. Institutional review boards at colleges, universities,
and other institutions review proposed research from an ethical standpoint. Guidelines of the
American Psychological Association (APA, 2002) cover such issues as informed consent
(consent freely given with full knowledge of what the research entails), avoidance of
deception, protection of participants from harm and loss of dignity , guarantees of privacy
and confidentiality , the right to decline or withdraw from an experiment at any time, and the
responsibility of investigators to correct any undesirable effects , such as anxiety or shame.

In resolving ethical dilemmas, researchers are expected to be guided by three principles: (1)
beneficence , the obligation to maximize potential benefits to participants and minimize
possible harm; (2) respect for participants’ autonomy and protection of those who are unable
to exercise their own judgment; and (3) justice , inclusion of diverse groups together with
sensitivity to any special impact the research may have on them. In evaluating risks and
benefits, researchers should consider participants’ developmental needs (Thompson, 1990)
and be sensitive to cultural issues and values.

The Society for Research in Child Development (2007) has developed standards for age-
appropriate treatment of children in research, covering such principles as avoidance of
physical or psychological harm, obtaining the child’s assent as well as a parent’s or
guardian’s informed consent, and responsibility to follow up on any information that could
jeopardize the child’s well-being. For example, infants’ and very young children’s ability to
cope with the stress of the research situation may hinge on the presence of a parent or trusted
caregiver, a familiar setting and procedure, and familiar objects.