Question
Answered step-by-step
UltraKnowledge7893
Assignment 1: Identifying and Evaluating Claims In the Press and in…
Assignment 1: Identifying and Evaluating Claims In the Press and in Scientific Journals.
Instructions: Read “Is Sponge Bob SqurarePants Bad for Children” by Roni Caryn Rabin available at:
https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/is-spongebob-squarepants-bad-for-children/?_r=0 (a popular press article that reports on the results of research originally published in a scientific journal by Lillard and Peterson (2011)). Read “The Immediate Impact of Different Types of Television on Young Children’s Executive Function by Lillard and Peterson available at:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2011/09/08/peds.2010-1919.full.pdf Answer the following questions based on the articles. You should not answer these questions in one long essay or narrative. Rather simply type your answers directly into this document! (If that doesn’t work for you for some reason, please let me know!)
Grading: The following scale will be used in grading each question. Many questions have multiple parts (i.e., a, b, c, etc.). For such questions a 0-3 score will be given for each part.
0
You haven’t tried to answer the question.
1
Question is addressed, but poor writing/grammatical errors make understanding your writing difficult AND/OR your response contains major content errors or major content omissions.
2
Question is addressed, writing is free of major grammatical errors, and response shows general understanding of the content with no more than minor content errors or content omissions.
3
Question is addressed, writing is free of major grammatical errors, and response shows thorough understanding of the content with no content errors or content omissions.
1. Identifying the claims:
a) What claim does the Rabin (2011) article indicate as being the central claim of the scientific study?
Paraphrase or quote information from the Rabin article to support your answer.
The central claim of the scientific study, as reported in the Rabin (2011) article, is that watching SpongeBob SquarePants decreases children’s cognitive abilities. “A new study has found that watching just nine minutes of the fast-paced cartoon ‘SpongeBob SquarePants’ can cause short-term attention and learning problems in 4-year-olds.” – Rabin (2011)
b) What variable(s) are part of this claim as reported in the Rabin article?
The variables in this claim are the time spent watching “Spongebob Squarepants” and its effect on kids’ attention abilities.
c) What type of claim (frequency, association, or causal) is this? Quote language from the article to support your answer.
This is a causal claim. “can cause short-term attention and learning problems” – Rabin (2011)
d) What is the actual central claim of the Lillard and Peterson (2011) paper as indicated in the Lillard and Peterson paper? Paraphrase or quote information from the Lillard and Peterson article to support your answer.
The actual central claim is that different types of TV shows have different impacts on young children’s executive functions. The authors conducted a study comparing the effects of fast-paced (FP) and slow-paced (SP) shows on children’s executive functions. “This study compared the immediate impact of fast-paced (FP) and slow-paced (SP) television on young children’s executive function.” – Lillard and Peterson (2011)
e) What variables are part of this claim as reported in the Lilard and Peterson paper?
The variables in the Lillard and Peterson (2011) paper are the type of TV shows (fast-paced vs slow-paced) and the children’s executive functions.
f) What type of claim (frequency, association, or causal) is this? Quote language from the article to support your answer.
This is a causal claim because one variable causes a change in another. For example, watching fast-paced television shows can affect and change a child’s executive functioning. “Influence” and “influence” show that this is a causal claim.
g) Identify something about the Rabin article that may lead readers to have a distorted, exaggerated, or inaccurate understanding of the central claim being made by Lillard and Peterson’s original report of the research. To do this provide a quote from the Rabin article along with an explanation of why you think the quoted part of the article could lead to a distorted, exaggerated, or inaccurate understanding of the central claim being made.
The Rabin article may lead readers to have a distorted, exaggerated, or inaccurate understanding of the central claim being made by Lillard and Peterson’s original report of the research by emphasizing only the effect of SpongeBob SquarePants on children’s cognitive abilities. “A new study has found that watching just nine minutes of the fast-paced cartoon ‘SpongeBob SquarePants’ can cause short-term attention and learning problems in 4-year-olds.” – Rabin (2011) This statement could lead to a distorted, exaggerated, or inaccurate understanding of the central claim being made as the original study only used SpongeBob SquarePants as an example of a fast-paced TV show, but the central claim is about the impact of different types of TV shows on young children’s executive functions.
2. Understanding journal article sections (base answers only on Lillard and Peterson (2011)):
a) The introduction section (the introduction section follows the abstract, but unlike other major sections is not typically blocked off with “Introduction” as a section heading) should provide a basis for the central claim (i.e., the hypothesis) of the paper by describing relevant prior research and or relevant theory. Summarize one research finding described in the introduction section that provides a basis for the central claim of the paper.
In the introduction section of the Lillard and Peterson (2011) paper, the authors describe previous research that has shown that the content of television shows can have an impact on young children’s cognitive abilities. They note that previous research has focused primarily on violent content, but that little research has been done on the impact of fast-paced shows on children’s executive functions. This provides a basis for the central claim of their paper, which is that different types of TV shows have different impacts on young children’s executive functions
b) One part of a typical discussion section will point out the significance/importance of the research (see
p. 47 of your text for more on this.) What is one point made in the discussion section regarding the significance/importance of the research?
In the discussion section of the Lillard and Peterson (2011) paper, the authors point out that their findings have significant implications for parents and educators. They note that their study provides evidence that fast-paced shows like SpongeBob SquarePants can have a negative impact on young children’s executive functions and that parents and educators should consider the type of TV shows that children are watching. One point made in the discussion section regarding the significance/importance of the research is that “these findings suggest that educators and parents should consider the type of television shows to which young children are exposed.”
3. Assessing Construct Validity:
a) What information does the Rabin article provide about how the independent variable was manipulated? In other words, what can you tell about the operational definition of the independent variable from the Rabin article?
The Rabin (2011) article indicates that the independent variable was the type of TV show watched by the children. The operational definition of the independent variable is not specified in the Rabin article, but it can be inferred that the children watched either 9 minutes of SpongeBob SquarePants or 9 minutes of a different, slower-paced educational show.
b) Describe any additional details about the operational definition of the independent variable provided by Lillard and Peterson’s paper.
The Lillard and Peterson (2011) paper provides additional details about the operational definition of the independent variable. They indicate that the children watched either 9 minutes of SpongeBob SquarePants or 9 minutes of a slower-paced educational show called “Caillou.” The authors note that the choice of these two shows was based on their contrast in pace and content.
c) What information does the Rabin article provide about how the dependent variable was measured? In other words, what can you tell about the operational definition of the dependent variable from the Rabin article?
The Lillard and Peterson (2011) paper provides additional details about the operational definition of the dependent variable. After completing the nine minutes in their assigned group, they immediately tested the children on their cognitive abilities, such as following instructions to complete tasks.
d) Describe any additional details about the operational definition of the dependent variable provided by Lillard and Peterson’s paper.
After the children had watched the two shows, 10 test items would be given to them, according to Lillard and Peterson’s operational definition of the dependent variable. The child was awarded 2 points for each correct response, 1 point for each incorrect response later corrected, and 0 points for an incorrect response. Part 3’s rules differed from Part 2, so only the children who received at least 14 extra points on Part 2 continued. The child’s strengths and weaknesses were also discussed with the parents in their responses. The statements were given a score of 0, 1, or 2 depending on how true the parent believed they were in relation to their child.
e) Do the details on operational definitions provided by Lillard and Peterson change your assessment of the quality of this research relative to if you had to base your assessment only on information provided by the Rabin article (you may focus on operational definitions of either the independent variable, the dependent variable or both)?
The additional details about the operational definitions provided by Lillard and Peterson alter the assessment of the quality of this research in comparison to the Rabin article. However, according to the information provided by Lillard and Peterson, the independent and dependent variables were clearly described, and the dependent variable was accurately measured, which raises the standard of the study.
4. Assessing Statistical Validity:
a) Does the Rabin article say if any of the effects in the study were statistically significant?
Yes, the Rabin article does say that some of the effects in the study were statistically significant.
b) Identify one effect reported in the Lillard and Peterson article that bears directly on the central claim of the article that was found to be statistically significant (P<.05)? In the Lillard and Peterson article, the "Reactivity to novelty task" showed a statistically significant effect of watching fast-paced television relative to drawing, with a p-value of less than .05. c) Does the Rabin article provide any statistics about how large Lillard and Peterson's effects were? The Rabin article does not provide any statistics about the size of Lillard and Peterson's effects. d) Look at Figure 1 in Lillard and Peterson's paper. What test of executive function showed the biggest effect of watching a fast-paced cartoon relative to drawing? About how big is this effect? To answer this, say how many standard deviations apart the z-score for the drawing group is from the z-score for the fast-paced television watching group. Hint: remember that z-scores tell you how many standard deviations a score is from the mean of all the scores. According to Figure 1 in the Lillard and Peterson article, the "Reactivity to novelty task" showed the biggest effect of watching fast-paced television relative to drawing. The z-score for the drawing group was -0.55 standard deviations apart from the z-score for the fast-paced television-watching group. 5. Assessing Internal Validity: a) Based on the Rabin article can you tell if Lillard and Peterson's study was an experiment? If not say what information is lacking that prevents you from being able to tell. If so, cite language from the text that indicates the study is an experiment. Based on the Rabin article, it can be inferred that Lillard and Peterson's study was an experiment because it involved a controlled comparison of the effects of two different types of television (fast-paced cartoons and slow-paced educational programming) on young children's executive function. The Rabin article states, "In a study conducted by researchers at the University of Virginia and published in Pediatrics, 4-year-olds who watched nine minutes of a fast-paced, violent cartoon performed worse on tests of self-control, attention and delay of gratification than those who watched a slower, more educational program." b) Based on Lillard and Peterson's paper determine whether or not the study was an experiment and state what this determination is based on. In Lillard and Peterson's paper, they clearly state that their study was an experiment. They write, "The purpose of this study was to determine the immediate impact of different types of television on young children's executive function." They also describe their methodology as involving a "controlled comparison" of two different types of television programs. c) If somehow more children with pre-existing attention problems ended up watching the fast paced cartoon in the study this would be an example of a what? If more children with pre-existing attention problems ended up watching the fast-paced cartoon in the study, it would be an example of selection bias. d) What did Lillard and Peterson do in addition to random assignment to ensure that their results were not influenced by pre-existing attention problems? Lillard and Peterson used random assignment to ensure that pre-existing attention problems did not influence their results. For example, they randomly assigned the children to watch a fast-paced cartoon or a slow-paced educational program. They also had the parents of the children participating in the study fill out a "strengths and difficulties" questionnaire beforehand, which included five questions about their attention span. That helped researchers determine if the child had pre-existing attention problems. 6. Assessing External Validity: a) Identify one external validity concern raised in the Rabin article. One external validity concern raised in the Rabin article is the generalizability of the findings to other populations. The article notes that the study participants were mostly white 4-year-olds from middle- to upper-middle-class families, and raises the question of whether the findings would hold for other populations, such as those from lower-income families or children of different ethnicities. b) Identify a separate external validity concern raised in the discussion section of Lillard and Peterson's article. In the discussion section of Lillard and Peterson's article, one external validity concern raised is the generalizability of the findings to other age groups. They note that their study was limited to 4-year-olds and that the results may not be applicable to older or younger children. c) Often times, when a study's external validity is challenged it is to suggest that the results of a study would not hold if a different population were studied. Chose a population other than mostly white 4 year olds from middle- to upper-middle class families and make a case for why the results of the study would either hold true for this other population or for why the results would change if the study were repeated with this other population. If the study were repeated with a population of children from lower-income families, it is possible that the results could be different. Children from lower-income families may have different exposure to and experiences with fast-paced television, which could affect their executive function. Additionally, their family and economic circumstances may impact their overall development, including their executive function, which could confound the results. 7. Basic or Applied Research: Would you consider the research describe in the two articles to be basic research of applied research? The research described in the two articles could be considered applied research, as it has a practical goal of understanding the immediate impact of different types of television on young children's executive function and providing information that can be used to inform recommendations for parents and educators. 8. Digging deeper: Identify a question or hypothesis that you think should be addressed as a next step in the process of trying to expand our understanding of how TV is related to executive function. A next step in expanding our understanding of how TV is related to executive function could be to examine the long-term effects of different types of television on children's development. This could involve conducting a longitudinal study to track the development of children who watch fast-paced cartoons versus slow-paced educational programming over several years. 9. Identifying Flawed Thinking about Research: Read through the comments people have posted in response to the Rabin article. Identify a comment that shows at least one type of flawed or biased thinking about the study (examples of flawed or biased thinking would be drawing conclusions without a comparison group, failure to consider confounds, failure to understand that research is probabilistic, the availability heuristic, present/present bias, confirmation bias etc.). Say what type of flawed/biassed thinking is illustrated in the comment by quoting relevant parts of the comment and explain how the type of flawed/biassed thinking you have indicated is apparent in the comment. One comment that shows flawed thinking about the study is: "I don't believe this study. My child watches SpongeBob all the time and he's a straight-A student." This comment illustrates the availability heuristic, which is a type of flawed thinking that occurs when people rely on easily accessible examples or information to make judgments, rather than considering all the relevant evidence. The person making this comment is likely relying on the specific example of their child's experience, without considering the larger body of research on the topic. The flawed thinking is apparent in the comment because the person is disregarding the results of the study and relying solely on their personal experience, which is a limited and biassed sample. Additionally, the person is not considering the many other factors that could contribute to their child's academic success, such as genetics, home environment, and access to educational resources. 10. Using Library Resources to find out more: Use EBSCOhost through Alden Library to find another scientific article on the issue of television and attention/concentration/exectutive function. Provide the APA style reference for the article you find (see p. 523-524 for your text for details on how to write up an APA style reference). Reference: Huber, B., Yeates, M., Meyer, D., Fleckhammer, L., & Kaufman, J. (2018). The effects of screen media content on young children's executive functioning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 170, 72-85. https://doi-org.ezproxyqcc.helmlib.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.01.006 please read this assignment above then answer these questions variables in Lillard and Peterson - good, but they didn't JUST compare fast-paced and slow-paced, right, there was also another comparison group - list that, too Introduction, part A, can you describe a SPECIFIC RESULT of a study that they describe in the introduction section? in 3/Assessing Construct validity part 3 b, how did they decide what was "fast-paced" and what was "slow-paced"? Then, in part c, you're talking about Lillard and Peterson when it asks about Rabin, I think. In part d in that same section, what do Lillard and Peterson say about the tasks they used to measure the dependent variable? In part e there, can you choose either the IV or the DV and describe why/how the extra information "raises the standard"? In part a - what does it say and where, then, in terms of statistical significance in the Rabin article? In part b, you write about ""Reactivity to novelty task" showed a statistically significant effect ..." I'm not sure where this is, as I don't seem to have this in my copy of the paper? In part D, again, you mention "Reactivity to novelty" and I'm not sure which task you're talking about? In 5 c, I think I see why you're saying selection bias - selection bias involves selecting only some participants and not selecting others, so your sample doesn't really represent your population fully. That's not exactly the issue here - the concern is that all of the participants with attentional issues end up in one group, rather then being evenly split between the two groups - what would that create?
