Class Notes (838,163)
Canada (510,718)
Psychology (3,336)
PSYC 412 (59)

Dev. Psyc. Lecture 1& 2 notes.docx

20 Pages
Unlock Document

PSYC 412
Melanie Dirks

Developmental Psychology How do we establish causality? [What causes] -If you knew the cause you would be able to cure it -Might not be just one cure -Methodology to draw causality Measurement (how are we g measure ps -Reliabilty: consistency, are we going toget the same thing if two ppl do it -Validity: Measuring what you want to be measuring, ex. Depression measure of depression is showing good construct with other measures, Is it agreeing with OTHER measures, is it showing discriminate or divergent validity from measure of dif. construct -Sampling: sample (group with whom I am ACTUALLY working with) vs. population (group in whom I am th th interested in GENERAL) ex. Working with 500 7 graders in Qc-> sample=500 population=7 graders, make sure sample REPRESENTS the population-> use RANDOM sampling to ensure this (equal chance of being selected) -External Validity: will findings generalize, will the research generalize all population of this group ex. 7 th graders in Qc. Will it generalize ALL 7 graders Epidemiology: HOW common is a given problem (how many, a lot of children and adolescents, few ppl) WHO has a given problem (more common in girls or boys? More common in low income families?) Identify rates of the problem in the POPULATION -Incidence: NEW cases over a time period (How many cases are new) -Prevalence: ALL cases during a time period (Every case in that time period) -Sampling and Measurement of disorder=CRITICAL -Use RANDOM sampling -Sample of convenience: Sample who is readily available-> NOT representative of the population -Sampling: NEED to be able to GENERALIZE to the population of interest EXAMPLE-> Ontario Child Health Study (OCHS)-> did follow ups on a large scale->6month prevalence rates of psychiatric disorder among children-> found: 5.44% conduct disorder, 6.7% ADHD-> Random Sampling approach (every kid in Ontario had an equal chance of being chosen) -NOT ENOUGH TO RANDOMLY SAMPLE-> take into account of how many say yes-> Ppl who AGREED to do it are probably going to be DIFFERENT then the people who DONT agree to do it=Sample NOT representative of the population-> ppl who move are harder to track down, low income ppl are also less likely to agree to participate [IN THIS STUDY-> they managed to get a lot of ppl/ majority who agreed to do the study] -How you DEFINE your construct is going to CHANGE your answers -Prevalence rate shift depending upon WHO the information is-> if the teacher or student or parent who answers the questions-> increases if teacher-> it changes depending on who answers-> ask parents=dif. answer then if you ask the teacher .Rule of thumb= 80%-90% higher is better (depends on who you think are missing-if you think it can change your answer then there is a problem) -ASSESS factors that influence rates and distribution of a disorder in a population .Demographic Factors: >Age (more likely as kids get older or problems with younger kids?) >Gender (more likely in male or females?) .Socio-economic status (more in low income families or higher income families?) -LOW SES= Associated with child pathology->SES CAN cause child psychopathology Factors associated with poverty (e.g., high-crime neighborhoods) may lead to disorder (example PSD) However, it may be that parents with psychological problems are more likely to be poor, and their children are more likely to have psychological symptoms->SES proceeding psychopathology -CORRELATION DOES NOT CAUSE CAUSATION Stay-at-home sons more prone to violence Toronto Star, July 22, 2009 (Conclusion of the Journalist) -concluded that living at home in your early 20s was a key risk factor for violent behavior -argued that it was because they have too much leisure time and disposable income [may be ppl who has substance abuse and are not able to work-violent behavior could be due to the substance abuse]-> Article may not be saying what the media is saying A and B are related to each other 1. A B 2. A B 3. A B C (third variable causing A&B) Example-> Bigger feet= greater intelligence -> third variable= age Establishing Causality: Theoretical expectation that A would cause B A and B have to be related empirically (correlation) Avas and cost of housing-> Peek and decline at the same time-> See a correlation but there is no theoretical possibility-> Moving together but one is not causing the other Shymalan (Director of 6 sense) and total newspaper ad sales-> movie on rotten tomato plummeted at the same time as total newspaper ad sales plummeted-> As newspaper subscriptions and the movie-> No plausible explantion Elimination of other possible causes Temporal ordering: A occurs before B Responsiveness: Changing A leads to change in B -Make sure its A and NOT something else Correlates of Disorder Correlates Variables associated at a given point in time Not clear that one precedes the others Natural experiments or case-control designs Compare children with disorder or experience to children without Common approach: Rates of psychopathology in children who have or have not experienced abuse (compare rates of psychopothology of each of these groups) School attendance in depressed versus non-depressed teens (how often they go to school and then compare both groups) Health in homeless families versus non-homeless families * Want the groups to be comparable in other ways (want to know that the difference is because of the variable you are interested in and not some other variable associated with it)ex. Due to depression and NOT another factor leading to depression - Be careful to rule out other causes - Make sure by-> groups are comparable in other dimensions that could cause that association E.g., matched for gender (equal number for each), age, SES Internal validity (extent to the variable we are interested in) Want to know that differences are due to the variable of interest Have to pick your control group very carefully Association between depression and social skills Children on an inpatient unit for depression and children attending school Can conclude-> defer in ways of just being depressed -> one group is in school and one is NOT could be due to in inpatient unit and school attendance or home enviorment. Children referred to an outpatient clinic for depression and children in school It could be something with being referred to a clinic Children referred to an outpatient clinic for depression and children referred to an outpatient clinic for oppositional defiant disorder Can conclude-> that it is due to depression Very common Methodology-> Advantages Allows us to answer important questions Often the only ethical way to address a question Helps us to establish internal validity Making groups equivalent on other factors helps to establish that differences are due to the variable of interest Weaknesses
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 412

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.