Quantitative Test Tri 1 2023

This test is worth 20 marks (20%) of the total of 100 marks available for this course.  This is an open-
book test and you are free to use your set readings, other course readings and course resources.   As
you will be only citing course materials you do not need to provide full references, intext citations
will suffice (e.g.,Gravetter & Wallnau, 2014).  You are being assessed on your knowledge and
understanding of the course content, and your ability to apply this knowledge.

Note two items numbered as questions are not questions but need to be numbered as such in Nuku
– Question 9  provides the instruction for final two test questions.

Questions 1-7 relate to the following article.

Schramm et al. (2016) Training problem solving and organizational skill in adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder: A Randomized Control Trial. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15(3), 391-
411.https://doi.org:10.1891/1945-8959.15.3.39

 Note: Focus your attention on reading the abstract to get an overview of the study. Then carefully
read the sections on Methods:Participants and Design of the study on pages 394 to 395. Skim read
the next pages and then focus on the Discussion Pages 405 to 407

1. What was the purpose of this study?  What was the hypothesis being tested?  How would
you word the null hypothesis? 2marks

2. Please succinctly describe the study design including the overarching method. 1marks

3. Please comment on the appropriateness of  how the participants were recruited and
selected for this study?2 marks
4. Briefly define internal validity. What measures have the researchers in this study  taken  to
ensure internal validity as far as possible?2 marks Take reference from the course
5. Briefly define external validity. What are  measures the researchers have taken to ensure
external validity?2 marks
6. Identify any additional threat/s to validity (of any sort) and explain how  this/these threat/s
might be  mitigated. 2 marks
7. In the Discussion section of the Schramm et al. (2016) study the researchers describe an
unexpected result. What did they find and what was their explanation for this finding?1
marks
 8. A report in  a Midwest town in  the United States noted that the relationship between the
number of fire engines attending fires was correlated r=0.75.  with the level of  damage to
buildings caused by fire.  The mayor says, " We need to pass a law that limits the number of
fire engines attending fires because more fire engines cause more damage to buildings."
Evaluate the mayor’s reasoning.1marks
9. Why does a strong experimental design include a control group? MCQs
a. Control groups have been an established part of scientific tradition for many decades.
b. It eliminates the effects of all confounding variables.
c. It gives information about how participants would perform without experiencing the
treatment
d. It increases the number of people in the study, and hence, the generalisablity of the results.

10. What aspect of the A-B-A design in Single Case studies helps us to determine whether the
treatment, as opposed to some  other variable, was responsible for any changes in
behaviour?MCQs
a. A continued increasing pattern in the response behaviour after the experiment is over.
b. A continued decreasing pattern in the response behaviour once the experiment is over.
c. Continuation of target behaviour at its observed treatment level after the treatment is
removed.
d. The target behaviour returns to the original levels after the treatment is removed.

Questions 11 to 12 relate to the following article.

Yarimkaya et al. (2022). A WhatsApp-delivered intervention to promote physical activity in young

children with autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities. Vol
68(5), 732-743.

 https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2021.1887436 Links to an external site.

 Read the abstract to get an overview of the study. Focus on the Study Design (page 733) and the
Results (Pages 737 – 738). Read these sections carefully to answer Questions 11 and 12.

11. In this study Yarimkaya et al. (2022) used a mixed method sequential exploratory
design.  What were some of the reasons that this design was used by the researchers?
12. The following statistics are taken from the Yarimkaya et al. (2022) study. These results are
analysed by the authors. The following questions require you to explain what the equations
are describing. There are three  t-test results you need to explain.

 a)  A t-test was used to compare the levels of physical activity in the children diagnosed with Autism
Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in the experimental group and the control group before the intervention .
This  t statistic is the result of the pre-test  comparison.

t(40)= .534; p>.05
b) Why did the researchers report that there was no significant difference in the levels of activity
between these two groups? Why would this result have been pleasing to the researchers in this
study?

 This questions relates to the paired t-test statistic  that was the result of the comparison between
the experimental group at Time 1 and Time 2 – before and after the intervention. Has there been a
significant change between the scores at Time 1 and Time 2? What tells you this?

  t(40)= . – 10.554; p<.05

c) Why was a paired t=test used for this comparison?

13.  In a hypothetical study a researcher wants to find out if there is a significant difference in the
language development test score of children who participate in early childhood education for
different lengths of time each week. She is also interested in finding out if there is a difference
between the language development scores of boys and girls at the end of early childhood
education.1 marks

Here is the table of Means and Standard deviations for the language test scores for the different
groups.

ECE 20 hours a week

ECE 5 hours a week
Language Development Score
Language Development Score

Mean (SD)
Mean  (SD)

 Boys 64.56 (10.81) 55.24(9.14)

Girls 71.34 (8.34) 65.47 (10.15)

This is the ANOVA statistic to show the difference between the  means of the four groups:

F (3,177)= 5.173; p<0.001

a. What does this ANOVA statistic tell us about the effect of weekly hours of ECE on Language
Development Scores for the different groups? How do you know?Although we can make an
assumption based on the evidence of the means what would we need to do to know which
group mean/s is/are statistically significantly different from the other means?