Assignment 1 – Experimental Research Design Case Study

Task Outline

Task Guidelines

Weighting/Marks: 20% / 20 marks

Assessment Type: Written Case Study Evaluation

Submission Type: Word document using provided template on StudyDesk Submission Process: via TurnItIn link on StudyDesk

Word Limit: Part A – 1.5 pages; Part B – 0.5 pages per threat to validity addressed. Font Style: As per the provided template.

References: No referencing required.

Task / Purpose

Research design will include threats to interval validity that are present and that have not been addressed by the structure of the current research design.

In Part A of the assignment, students will need to go through the list of possible threats to internal validity (as covered in the course) and assess if each threat to validity is present or not. For threats to internal validity that are not present, provide an explanation about why this threat is not present.

For example, has the research design incorporated a particular feature that has reduced this threat? For threats to internal validity that are present, provide an explanation about how this has come about. That is, what has the researcher done (or not done) to have this threat to internal validity present in the current design.

In Part B of the assignment, students will then focus on addressing the threats to internal validity that are still present as identified in Part A. Firstly, students should propose a change to the current experimental design that addresses one of these threats to internal validity. Secondly, the student should then explain (i.e., justify) how the specific change in the experimental design addresses the threat to internal validity.

Please note that a single change to the experimental design may address more than one threat to internal validity. However, please ensure your responses to Part B are broken up per threat being addressed. That is, don’t attempt to merge together two or three threats into one.

Please also note that the changes you make to the experimental design should be specific to a threat to internal validity identified as being present in Part A. Threats to internal validity that are not present as assessed in Part A should not be included in Part B. Furthermore, changes to the experimental design for other reasons (e.g. improving statistical power, using a gold standard measuring technique) are not relevant here. Again, proposed changes to the experimental design