CRJ 302 Lecture Notes - Lecture 6: Content Validity, Operational Definition

141 views3 pages

harlequinbadger914

15 Sep 2016

School

ASU

Department

Criminology and Criminal Justice

Course

CRJ 302

Professor

Dr.John Hepburn

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Assumes there is a reality; that theoretical concepts actually exist. Assumes that these concepts can be observed. Assumed that observed concepts can be measured. Assumes that our knowledge of concepts improves as our ability to measure improves. Measurement is a reification of concepts they become objectified. Nominal definitions: a working definition of the concept. Operational definition: the concept is defined precisely in terms of how it will be measured, the operations used to measure it. Need to reduce the likelihood of measurement failure or weak and biased measurements. To describe, and explain, to test, we need valid and reliable measurements. Faulty can be in the operational definition itself. Faulty can also be in the degree to which the operational definition provides us with valid and reliable measurement. Measurement validity: extent to which variation in scores reflects true differences between the persons or entities being measured.

Related Questions

FASB SFAS 157 was issued September 2006 for application tofinancial statements issued for fiscal years beginning afterNovember 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years.This Statement, which applies to assets and liabilities, definesfair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value ingenerally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and expandsdisclosures about fair value measurements. The statement does notapply to assets acquired and liabilities assumed in an acquisitionof a business or non-profit activity by a not-for-profit entitythat are required to be measured at fair value under FASB StatementNo. 164. The objective of a fair value measurement is to determinethe price that would be received to sell the asset or paid totransfer the liability at the measurement date which is the exitprice. The fair value measurement assumes that the asset orliability is exchanged in an orderly transaction between marketparticipants. For assets, fair value measurement assumes thehighest and best use of the asset by market participants,considering the use of the asset that is physically possible,legally permissible, and financially feasible at the measurementdate. The highest and best use of the asset establishes thevaluation premise. For liabilities, it is assumed that theliability is transferred to a market participant at the measurementdate and that the nonperformance risk relating to that liability isthe same before and after its transfer. The fair value of theliability shall reflect the nonperformance risk relating to thatliability. As in our text, the position in the statement is thatvaluation techniques must be consistently applied. It emphasizesthose valuation techniques using the market approach, incomeapproach, and cost approach to measure fair value. In some cases asingle valuing technique may serve the purpose, however in others,using multiple techniques may be more appropriate. The informationthat is available will help to determine which method that shouldbe used. Examples are provided in Appendix A to illustrate thevarious approaches for certain transactions. The statement alsoestablishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs tovaluation techniques used to measure fair value by placing theminto three broad levels in order to increase consistency andprovide better comparability. Level 1 is given the highest priorityand is based on quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets foridentical assets or liabilities that the reporting entity has theability to access at the measurement date. Level 2 is based oninformation other than quoted prices included within Level 1 thatare observable for the asset or liability, either directly orindirectly through substantiation with observable market data.Level 3 has the lowest priority and is based on unobservable inputsfor the asset or liability, primarily, inputs that reflect thereporting entityâs own assumptions.

Follow-Up Discussion Expand upon any of the points identified byyour classmates and/or ask for clarification on points that you donot understand.

I have provided the classmates response.

300 words

I'm not really sure were to get started on this problem...

I am so lost onwere to even begin. I just need help trying to find the Ñ² (angle)for part part 1 of the experiment if anyone can just explain how todo that and maybe give me a step-by-step example so I can finishthe rest. Thank you! Experiment 6 ~ Friction

Purpose:

In this lab, you will make some basic measurements of friction.You will measure the coefficients of staticfriction between several combinations of surfaces using aninclined plane, and you will measure the coefficient ofkinetic friction between two of the combinationsof surfaces you used in the static friction part of thisexperiment.

Part 1: StaticFriction

Theory:

The coefficient of static frictionm_s can be measured experimentally foran object placed on an inclined plane (a.k.a. ramp, a.k.a. hill).The coefficient of static friction is related to the criticalangle q_c for the ramp, at whichthe object just begins to slide. Using what we havecovered in class, you can derive this relationshipyourself! At this critical angle, static friction preventing theobject from sliding down the hill is just exactly equal to thecomponent of the objectâs weight along the hill. If the componentof the weight along the hill were just a little greater, it wouldovercome friction, and the object would start to slide down. Thefree body diagram for this situation will look like the figuresketched below. Use this diagram to find an equation that relatesm_s toq_c.

Questions:

1. How do the values of m_s compareto the values of m_k? (Of course, youcan only compare them for the same pairs of materials.)

2. Is the relationship betweenm_sand m_kwhat you expected?

3. Of the two parts of the experiment, measurement ofm_sand measurement ofm_k, which had more sources of error?What were some of the sources of error?

4. Could m_k orm_s ever be greater than 1? Explain whyor why not.

5. Is the coefficient of friction the same as when the block wasstanding on its larger (or smaller) end?

6. Think about your results. Do they make sense when youconsider your everyday experiences?

CRJ 302 Lecture Notes - Lecture 6: Content Validity, Operational Definition

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

CRJ 302 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Observational Error, Intelligence Quotient, Content Validity

CRJ 302 Lecture Notes - Lecture 15: Quasi, External Validity, Usability

CRJ 302 Study Guide - Final Guide: Cluster Sampling, Systematic Sampling, Sampling Frame

Related Questions