Category: Psychological

Psychological | Medical!

  • How do we commonly perform brain activity research?

    How do we commonly perform brain activity research?

    Brain activity research is a broad field that encompasses various scientific studies and investigations aimed at understanding the functions, processes, and mechanisms of the brain. Researchers employ various techniques and technologies to explore brain activity, including neuroimaging, electrophysiology, and behavioral experiments.

    Understanding Brain activity research: Meaning, Types, Pros, and Cons with Its Importance

    Neuroimaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and electroencephalography (EEG), allow researchers to visualize and measure brain activity. These methods provide insights into which areas of the brain are involved in different tasks. How they communicate and interact, and how they change under various conditions or during specific cognitive processes all are findings that can be interpreted from brain activity research, made possible by the likes of BrainAccess.ai.

    Electrophysiological techniques involve recording electrical signals generated by the brain. These methods include single-neuron recording, electrocorticography (ECoG), and event-related potentials (ERPs). They provide researchers with precise temporal information about the firing patterns of neurons. And the coordination of neural activity during specific events or cognitive processes.

    Behavioral experiments involve studying the relationship between brain activity and behavior. Researchers design experiments to manipulate certain variables or conditions and observe how they influence brain activity and subsequent behavior. This approach helps uncover the neural basis of cognition, perception, memory, decision-making, and other complex mental processes.

    Brain activity research has led to significant advancements in our understanding of the brain. And its role in various neurological and psychiatric disorders. It has shed light on the neural basis of consciousness, emotions, learning, and other cognitive functions. Moreover, it has enabled the development of diagnostic tools, therapeutic interventions, and neuroprosthetic devices to treat brain-related conditions and enhance human performance.

    It is worth noting that brain activity research is a rapidly evolving field, and new techniques and methodologies are continually emerging. Scientists are also exploring interdisciplinary approaches, combining insights from neuroscience, psychology, computer science, and other fields to tackle complex questions about the brain and its activity.

    What is Brain Research?

    Brain research is the scientific study of the brain, aiming to understand its functions, structure, and how it influences behavior and cognition. It involves using various techniques to investigate the brain’s activity, such as neuroimaging and electrophysiology. The findings from brain research have led to advancements in understanding neurological disorders and developing treatments.

    How do we commonly perform brain activity research Image
    How do we commonly perform brain activity research? Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay.

    Types of Brain Research

    Brain research encompasses various types of scientific investigations aimed at understanding the brain’s functions, processes, and mechanisms. Here are some common types of brain research:

    Neuroimaging:

    Neuroimaging techniques, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and electroencephalography (EEG), allow researchers to visualize and measure brain activity. You can check out an EEG cap here to get an idea of what they look like. These methods provide insights into which areas of the brain are involved in different tasks. How they communicate and interact, and how they change under various conditions or during specific cognitive processes.

    Electrophysiology:

    Electrophysiological techniques involve recording electrical signals generated by the brain. These methods include single-neuron recording, electrocorticography (ECoG), and event-related potentials (ERPs). They provide researchers with precise temporal information about the firing patterns of neurons and the coordination of neural activity during specific events or cognitive processes.

    Behavioral Experiments:

    Behavioral experiments involve studying the relationship between brain activity and behavior. Researchers design experiments to manipulate certain variables or conditions and observe how they influence brain activity and subsequent behavior. This approach helps uncover the neural basis of cognition, perception, memory, decision-making, and other complex mental processes.

    Computational Modeling:

    Computational modeling involves using computer simulations to replicate and understand brain activity. By creating models based on existing knowledge of neural networks. Also, Researchers can test hypotheses and gain insights into the underlying mechanisms of brain function.

    Genetics and Molecular Neuroscience:

    This type of research focuses on studying the genetic and molecular factors that influence brain development, function, and disorders. Researchers investigate the genes involved in brain processes and explore. How changes in gene expression can affect brain activity and behavior.

    Clinical and Translational Research:

    Clinical and translational research aims to apply findings from basic brain research to diagnose, treat, and prevent neurological and psychiatric disorders. Also, It involves conducting studies with human participants, evaluating the efficacy of interventions, and developing new therapies or techniques based on scientific discoveries.

    It is important to note that brain research is a dynamic and evolving field, and new types of research methods and interdisciplinary approaches continue to emerge as scientists strive to deepen our understanding of the brain and its activity read more here for further insight.

    Pros and Cons of Brain activity research

    Pros of Brain Activity Research:

    1. Advances our understanding of the brain.
    2. Contributes to advancements in neuroscience.
    3. Helps develop therapeutic interventions.
    4. Also, Enhances human performance.
    5. Promotes interdisciplinary collaboration.

    Cons of Brain Activity Research:

    1. Cost and resource-intensive.
    2. Raises ethical considerations.
    3. Complexity and interpretation challenges.
    4. Also, Potential bias in study design and sample selection.
    5. Limited generalizability of results.

    Importance of Brain activity research

    Brain activity research is of paramount importance for several reasons:

    1. Understanding the Brain: It allows us to unravel the complexities of the human brain, including its structure, functions, and how different areas interact. Also, This knowledge helps us comprehend how thoughts, emotions, memories, and behaviors arise from neural activity.
    2. Advancing Medicine: Brain activity research plays a crucial role in advancing medical knowledge and finding treatments for neurological disorders and mental illnesses. By investigating abnormal brain activity patterns associated with conditions like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, epilepsy, and depression, researchers can develop better diagnostic tools and more effective therapies.
    3. Improving Brain-Computer Interfaces: Studying brain activity is essential for the development of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) that enable direct communication between the brain and external devices. Also, This technology holds tremendous potential for assisting people with severe disabilities. Allowing them to control prosthetic limbs or communicate through devices.
    4. Enhancing Learning and Education: Understanding brain activity patterns during learning can improve teaching methods and educational practices. Brain activity research can help identify the most effective learning strategies, and tailor instruction to individual needs. And optimize educational environments to maximize knowledge acquisition.
    5. Advancing Cognitive Enhancement: By studying brain activity, researchers can investigate techniques for enhancing cognitive abilities such as attention, memory, and problem-solving. Insights from this research may lead to the development of interventions and training methods to boost cognitive performance in healthy individuals.
    6. Uncovering Consciousness: Brain activity research plays a vital role in unraveling the mystery of consciousness. By studying patterns of brain activity associated with different states of consciousness. Researchers can explore the neural correlates of awareness, providing deeper insights into what it means to be conscious.

    Bottom line

    Brain activity research is a broad field that encompasses various scientific studies aimed at understanding the functions, processes, and mechanisms of the brain. Researchers use techniques such as neuroimaging, electrophysiology, and behavioral experiments to explore brain activity. Neuroimaging allows visualization and measurement of brain activity, while electrophysiology records electrical signals generated by the brain. Behavioral experiments study the relationship between brain activity and behavior.

    Brain activity research has led to advancements in our understanding of the brain, neurological and psychiatric disorders. And the development of diagnostic tools and therapeutic interventions. The field is rapidly evolving with new techniques and interdisciplinary approaches emerging. Brain research investigates the brain’s functions, structure, and influence on behavior and cognition. It involves different types of research methods, including neuroimaging, electrophysiology, behavioral experiments, computational modeling, genetics and molecular neuroscience, and clinical and translational research.

    The pros of brain activity research include advancing our understanding of the brain, contributing to neuroscience advancements, developing therapeutic interventions, enhancing human performance, and promoting interdisciplinary collaboration. However, there are cons, such as cost and resource intensiveness, ethical considerations, complexity and interpretation challenges, potential bias, and limited generalizability of results. Brain activity research is important for understanding the brain, advancing medicine, improving brain-computer interfaces, enhancing learning and education, advancing cognitive enhancement, and uncovering consciousness.

  • What is Behavioral Perspective in Psychology Essay?

    What is Behavioral Perspective in Psychology Essay?

    Behavioral Perspective in Psychology Essay; Behavioral psychology exists thought to be a perspective that mainly focuses on behaviors that have stood learned. While psychology existed mainly dominated by behaviorism in the early 20th century; it quickly started to diminish in the 1950s. Nowadays, the behavioral perspective still deals with how behaviors have existed learned, and reinforced. Behavioral principles have many times existed applied in settings of mental health; where some therapists/ counselors have used these certain techniques to try to explain and treat a lot of illnesses.

    Here is the article to explain, Behavioral Perspective Psychology Types and Essay!

    Since Behavioral Perspective is the way people view the psychological aspect of behavior; then it is obvious that this perspective indicates the study of observable and measurable behavior. It does this in a way only in which the environment is the only this that determines this behavior. Also included in this perspective is the natural way of man, the belief that everything stands caused by something; and the fact that change is capable of happening.

    Behaviorists tend to think that the nature of man is not good or evil. They also believe in the theory of “Tabula Rasa,” also known as the blank slate theory. This theory explains that when a baby is born with no reason or knowledge; then obviously their knowledge has to be drawn from their environment and experiences.

    Behaviorist B.F. Skinner goes over the fact that he believes in this concept by always stating that as far as he knows, at any point in time; his behavior has not been anything more than the product of his personal history; his genetic endowment, and the current setting he is in then.

    Ideas;

    The Behavioral Perspective takes some ideas from the Tabula Rasa such as conditioning; and behavior modification to merge or combine the other valuable ideas inside of the Behavioral Perspective; such as the perspective which includes the natural way of man; the belief that everything exists caused by something, and the fact that change is capable of happening. The concept that we as humans have no free will call Determinism. Also with the Tabula Rasa theory, there has been one more aspect of determinism which call conditioning.

    Conditioning considers being one of the simplest forms one can do to learn. In conditioning, a certain type of behavior exists learned by a person and or animal. This type of learning exists often considered to be a direct result of the reinforcement or the connection of an unconditioned stimulus with a conditioned stimulus.

    An interesting concept some behaviorists believe is that certain behaviors can counter or unlearn; through either positive or negative change in the actual reinforcement. The change in the reinforcement call behavior modification; and, the person can give an object or something that they can use to trade-in for something better every time they do the right thing.

    Behavioral Approach;

    The behavioral approach to understanding motivation deals with drives, both learned and unlearned, and with incentives. Drive theory involves the concepts of unlearned (or primary) drives, drive reduction, and learned (secondary) drives. It is based on the fact that all living organisms have physiological needs that must exist satisfied for survival (for example, the need for food, water, sleep, and so forth) to maintain a state of homeostasis, that is, a steady internal state.

    Disruption of an organism’s homeostatic state causes a state of tension (arousal) called an unlearned, or primary, drive. If the aroused state has existed created by hunger; it calls a hunger drive, and the drive can reduce by food. Drive reduction moves toward the re-establishment of homeostasis. Drives, then, may exist thought of as the consequence of a physiological need; which an organism stands impelled to reduce or eliminate. Clark Hull, a learning theorist, developed an equation to show how learning and drive are related. Drives may also learn, or secondary. Fear (or anxiety), for example, exists often considered a secondary drive that can learn through either classical or operant conditioning.

    Neal Miller’s Thories;

    In Neal Miller’s well-known operant conditioning experiment, a rat existed placed in a black box and then given a mild electrical shock. Eventually, the rat learned to react to the experience of being put in a black box (with no shock given) with the response of turning a wheel to escape. In this case, the black box exists said to have elicited the learned drive of fear. Among other drives considered by some theorists to learn are the need for affiliation (that is, to belong, to have companionship), the need for security (money), and the need for achievement.

    Theories of incentive motivation contend that external stimuli can motivate behavior. Humans and other animals can learn to value external stimuli (for example, the first prize in a track meet for a human and a pat on the head for a dog) and will work to get them. Incentive motivation stands sometimes called pull motivation because incentives exist said to pull in contrast with the push associated with drives. Kenneth Spence, well known for his work in incentive motivation, suggested that the incentive value of the reward strengthens the response”. The following two types of behavior from the behavioral perspective of psychology below are;

    What is the Normal Behavior?

    The common pattern of behavior found among the general majority stands said to be the behavior of the normal. Normal people exhibit satisfactory work capacity and earn an adequate income. They conform and adjust to their social surrounding. They are capable of establishing, satisfying, and acceptable relationships with other people; and their emotional reactions are appropriate to different situations.

    Such people manage to control their emotions. Their emotional experiences do not affect their personality adjustment though they experience occasional frustrations and conflict. These people who adjust well with themselves, their surroundings, and their associates constitute the normal group. The normal group covers the great majority of people.

    According to Coleman (1981), normal behavior will represent the optimal development and functioning of the individual consistent with the long-term well-being and progress of the group. Thus, people having an average amount of intelligence, personality stability, social adaptability consider normal.

    What is the Abnormal Behavior?

    The concept of abnormality stands defined as the simple exaggeration or perverted development of normal psychological behavior. In other words, it deals with the usual behavior of man. The unusual or maladapted behavior of many persons; which do not fit into our common forms of behavior stands known as abnormal behavior. Abnormality refers to maladjustment to one’s society and culture which surrounds him. It is the deviation from the normal unfavorably and pathologically.

    According to Brown (1940), abnormal psychological phenomena are simple exaggerations (overdevelopment or under development) or disguised (i.e., perverted, developments) of the normal psychological phenomena.

    It expects, for instance, that a normal human being would react to a snake by immediately withdrawing from it. But if the person, on the contrary, plays with the snake very happily, it is a sign of uncommon behavior; which may consider abnormal provided that experience or training does not play a part here.

    Training;

    A person who has been by profession trained from the very childhood to deal with snakes will not afraid of a snake and if he does not withdraw from a snake, will not consider abnormal. Coleman (1981) holds that deviant behaviors consider maladaptive because they are not only harmful to society but the individual. Maladaptive behavior impairs individual and group well being and it brings distress to the individual. It also leads to individual and group conflicts.

    Page (1976) views that the abnormal group consists of individuals marked by limited intelligence, emotional instability, personality disorgani­zation, and character defects who in most part led wretched personal lives and were social misfits and liabilities. Thus, abnormality and normality can only define in terms of conformity to the will and welfare of the group and the capacity for self-management.

    A close analysis of various types of abnormal behavior indicates that abnormal behavior circumscribes a wide range of maladaptive reactions like psychoneuroses, psychoses, delinquents, sexual deviants, drug addicts, etc.

    Thus, some kind of biological, social, and psychological maladjustment affects the functioning of the individual in a society. The abnormal deviants who constitute about 10 percent of the general population are classified into four main categories; such as psychoneurotic, psychotic, menially defective, and antisocial.

    Focused;

    The behavioral perspective stands mainly focused on the idea that psychology should only exist concerned with the measurable physical responses one has to certain environmental stimuli. This certain perspective was first introduced to the world by John Broadus Watson who lived from 1878 to 1958. He was a great student at the University of Chicago and worked to get his doctorate at the same time.

    He strongly believed that the science of psychology existed meant to be a hard science as the rest of the sciences were therefore psychology should seek out observable behavior. Watson thought that psychology existed not meant to deal with mental events because to him they are un-measurable in every way except to the actual organism experiencing them.

    Behavioral Perspective in Psychology Essay Image
    What is Behavioral Perspective in Psychology Essay?
  • What is Perception in Psychology Essay?

    What is Perception in Psychology Essay?

    Perception in Psychology Meaning, Definition, and Essay; Perception is the sensory expertise of the globe. It involves each recognizing environmental stimuli and actions in response to those stimuli. Through the sensory activity method, we tend to gain data concerning the properties; and components of the surroundings that are unit vital to our survival. What is Structuralism in a Psychology Essay? It does not solely create our expertise of the globe around America; it permits us to act among the environment.

    Here is the article to explain, What is essay of Perception in Psychology with their Meaning and Definition!

    Perception, according to Yolanda Williams, a psychology professor; can be defined as our way to recognize and interpret the information we’ve gathered through our senses. This also includes how we respond to a certain situation with the given information. Psychology is the study of behavior and mental processes. They relate to psychology because as discussed in the notes, psychology is the study of behavior and mental processes; while perception is how we react to situations. In other words, our behavior towards that situation.

    What does means Perception? Meaning and Definition;

    It includes the 5 senses touch, sight, sound, smell, and taste. It additionally includes what is referred to as interception; a group of senses involving the flexibility to observe changes in body positions and movements. It additionally involves the psychological feature methods needed to process data; like recognizing the face of a lover or police investigation a well-known scent.

    Another word often associated with perception is sensation. They are often used interchangeably, however; sensation is the process of reevaluating information from the world into the brain. We use our senses to detect and recognize something; which then allows us to process the information and discover the emotions and react to the situation we see, which is perception.

    Types of the Perception;

    Some of the main types of perception include: Vision, Touch, Sound, Taste, and Smell; other senses allow us to perceive things such as balance, time, body position, acceleration, and the perception of internal states. Many of these are multimodal and involve more than one sensory modality. Social perception, or the ability to identify and use social cues about people and relationships, is another important type of perception.

    There are two types of theories to perception, there is the self-perception theory and the cognitive dissonance theory. There are many theories about different subjects in perception. Some disorders relate to perception even though you may think perception is just a person’s viewpoint.

    First, the self-perception theory, inspired by B. F. Skinner’s analyses, is when individuals come to “know” or better understand their attitudes, emotions, and other personal states mostly by concluding them from observing their behavior and/or the situations in which this behavior occurs. One example would be an individual who describes “butterflies in the stomach”. We have all identified this feeling for ourselves, on our own (Bem).

    The cognitive dissonance theory is a person having two thoughts that contradict each other. For example, a person that thinks eating sugar is bad for you, but then continues to eat sugar; because they believe that not eating sugar, wouldn’t change anything, so nothing will change the current health the individual is in. These thoughts are contradicting, almost hypocritical. According to Leon Festinger, the existence of dissonance causes the individual to be psychologically uncomfortable; which then allows the individual to try to remain constant in his/her thoughts. Also, while the individual wants to become consistent, the individual will try to avoid situations that include that subject that causes dissonance (Festinger).

    Other things in psychology;

    Like other things in psychology, there is a lot of science behind the perception. One thing has to do with light and our eyes. When looking in a mirror, light bounces off your face, and then off the mirror, and then into your eyes. Your eyes then take in all that energy and transform it into neural messages that your brain processes and organizes into what you see. As humans, we only see a small fraction of the full spectrum of electromagnetic radiation that ranges from gamma to radio waves.

    Our eyes percept what we see based on wavelengths and amplitudes. Wavelengths and frequency determine their hue; for example, short wavelengths and high frequencies omit blueish colors, whereas long wavelengths and low frequencies omit reddish colors. The amplitude determines the intensity or brightness. Large amplitudes are bright colors, and small amplitudes are dull colors.

    After taking in light through the pupil and the cornea, it hits the transparent disc behind the pupil called the lens. This focuses the light rays into specific images, which projects these images onto the retina. The retina is the inner surface of the eyeball that contains all of the receptor cells that begin sensing that visual information. Once reached the ganglion cells, the axon tails form the ropy optic nerve through the thalamus, to the brain’s visual cortex, which is located in the occipital lobe. This allows us to view things in the world.

    Example;

    An example of our perception of the things we look at and how they can differ depending upon the person would be The Dress. The Dress became an internet phenomenon overnight because people couldn’t agree on what color it was. Some people swore that they saw a white dress with gold lace, while others saw a blue dress with black lace. Scientists studied the dress and concluded that the different perception of color is due to the expectation that the dress will appear the same under different lighting, explaining color constancy. People who saw the dress as white and gold, probably saw that the dress was lit by sunshine, causing their brains to ignore the shorter, bluer wavelengths. The people that saw the dress as blue and black, saw it lit by false lighting; causing their brains to ignore longer, redder wavelengths (Lewis).

    Oliver Sacks, a famous physician, professor, and author of unusual case studies, is viewed as a brilliant individual for his work; however, cannot do a simple task such as recognizing himself in a mirror. He has a form of Prosopagnosia, which is a neurological disorder that impairs an individual’s ability to perceive or recognize faces. This is also known as face blindness. He can perceive other information, such as his handwriting, or book on a shelf, but is not able to recognize a close friend in a crowd. His Fusiform Gyrus, thought to be crucially involved in face perception, is malfunctioning. Many studies show that other parts of the brain; such as the occipital lobe, and amygdala also play a key role in this disorder.

    Disorder;

    Another disorder having to do with perception is the Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder. According to DSM 5, it is a psychiatric disorder that is very different from Palinopsia, which is a medical disorder. Palinopsia causes people to see reoccurring images even after the stimulus has left. With Hallucinogen Persisting Perception, the individual sees higher intensities of distractions or interferences than an individual with normal vision does. It is normal to stare at something bright and see light particles called floaters. A person with Hallucinogen experiences higher frequencies and this interferes with their everyday life. An example of an individual with this disorder would be that the person may have difficulty naming colors or telling the difference between them. Another issue they may have is while reading, the words and letters may seem to move all over the page.

    The perception exists often influenced or even biased by our expectations, experiences, moods, and sometimes cultural norms. This is where the mind comes in, not just the brain. We are even able to fool ourselves due to our expectations. Our eyes play a role in perceiving information to our brain, but really, our mind has the most power. Our perceptual set is the psychological factors that determine how we perceive the environment. For example, our perception can exist influenced by our mood. People often say a hill is steeper when listening to depressing music and walking alone; however, it would feel less steep if you were listening to pop, or a cheery tune and walking with a friend.

    Objects;

    The figure-ground relationship is the organization of the visual field into objects that stand out from their surroundings. For example, the very common black and white picture of either a vase or two faces. It could be a white vase on a black background or two faces on a white background. If you look long enough, your perception will flip between the two, causing the figure and ground to flip also. Sometimes the vase is the figure and the black is the background, whereas the faces are the figure and the white is the background.

    Another example is if you are in a crowd of people and trying to listen to a certain person from across the room. You only hear what that person is saying, which makes the individual the figure. Whereas everyone else around you that is speaking is the ground. Another part of perception is proximity. This is an example that we like to group nearby things. Instead of seeing a ton of random people at a party; we tend to mentally connect people standing next to each other. For example, athletes in one spot, the government team in another spot, etcetera.

    Important;

    Something else important to perception would be depth perception. This is the ability to see objects in three dimensions, even though images that strike the retina are two-dimensional. Depth perception also helps us to perceive an object’s distance and full shape. We use binocular cues, the retinal disparity that depends on the use of two eyes. The retinal disparity exists used for perceiving depth. For example, by holding your index fingers in front of your face and proceeding to look beyond them, you now have four fingers instead of two. Monocular cues, such as interposition and linear perspective, are available to either eye alone. This helps us determine the scale and distance of an object; such as relative height and size, linear perspective, texture gradient, and interposition.

    Use;

    Motion perception exists used to determine the speed and direction of the moving object. Your brain perceives motion mostly based on the idea that shrinking objects are moving away, or retreating, and enlarging objects are coming fourth or approaching. However, your brain can easily stand misled when it comes to motion. For example, large objects appear to move slower than small ones that are going at the same speed. Also, organizing things by form, depth, and motion, our perception of the world requires consistency, which brings us back to the cognitive dissonance theory.

    Perceptual constancy is what allows us to continuously recognize an object regardless of its distance, view angle, or motion. Even though it might change color, size, and shape based on conditions. For instance, we all know what a Chihuahua looks like, so if we see a green Chihuahua, we still know it’s a Chihuahua. A person with dissonant beliefs might try to say that it’s not a Chihuahua because it’s a different color, even though it still clearly looks like a Chihuahua.

    Factors Affecting Perception;

    There are individual differences in perceptual abilities. Two people may perceive the same stimulus differently. The factors affecting the perceptions of people are:

    Perceptual learning:

    Based on past experiences or any special training that we get, every one of us learns to emphasize some sensory inputs and to ignore others. For example, a person who has got training in some occupation like artistry or other skilled jobs can perform better than other untrained people. Experience is the best teacher for such perceptual skills. For example, blind people identify the people by their voice or by the sounds of their footsteps.

    Mental set:

    Set refers to preparedness or readiness to receive some sensory input. Such expectancy keeps the individual prepared with good attention and concentration. For example, when we are expecting the arrival of a train; we listen to its horn or sound even if there is a lot of noise disturbance.

    Motives and needs:

    Our motives and needs will influence our perception. For example, a hungry person exists motivated to recognize only the food items among other articles. His attention cannot exist directed towards other things until his motive stands satisfied.

    Cognitive styles:

    People stand said to differ in the ways they characteristically process the information. Every individual will have his or her way of understanding the situation. It exists said that flexible people will have good attention; and, they are less affected by interfering influences and be less dominated by internal needs and motives than people at the constricted end.

    Our mind is responsible for most of the ways we perceive things. Our eyes and our brain do the science; while our mind decides how were going to take the sensations, or data collected. Our mind decides to retain information from the sensations we experience and evaluate them to different personal views.

    Perception in Psychology Meaning Definition and Essay Image
    Perception in Psychology Meaning, Definition, and Essay
  • What is the Structuralism in Psychology Essay?

    What is the Structuralism in Psychology Essay?

    Structuralism Psychology Meaning, Definition, and Essay; It considers as a theory of consciousness that existed suggested by Wilhelm Wundt and developed by his student Edward Titchener. The theory came to be in the 20th century: where its reliability stood debated and challenged by the growing scientific community at that time. Structuralism also considers a school of psychology that seeks to analyze the components of an adult mind. It seeks to analyze the simplest thoughts of a mind that bring about the more complex experience that we go through in our day-to-day life.

    Here is the article to explain, Structuralism in Psychology also their Meaning, Definition, and Essay!

    According to structuralism, meaning stands produced and reproduced through actions and practices that form a unit. Linguistics, literature, Anthropology, and mathematics are some fields of knowledge where structuralist principles existed applied.

    What is the meaning of structuralism in psychology?

    Structuralism was a faculty of thought that sought-after to spot the elements (structure) of the mind — the mind existed thought of as the key component to psychological science at now. Structuralists believed that the thanks to study the brain and its functions was to interrupt the mind down into its most elementary components.

    Besides the higher than, what’s the most plan of structuralism? the fundamental plan behind structuralism is that individual and collective behaviors emerge from some underlying structure. With Ferdinand de Saussure and therefore the linguists, the structure is Associate in Nursing abstract system of reticulate ideas.

    Definition of Structuralism;

    Structuralism was a faculty of thought that sought-after to spot the parts (structure) of the mind — the mind was thought-about the key component to scientific discipline at this time. Structuralists believed that the thanks to study the brain and its functions was to interrupt the mind down into its most simple components. They believed the entire is the adequate total of the elements.

    Wilhelm Wundt, a UN agency took into account the pioneer Structuralist, who found the initial psychological laboratory in 1879. Following Wundt was Titchner UN agency popularized the sphere (he was one among Wundt’s students). Titchener was curious about the acutely aware mind. He used a method referred to as self-contemplation to undertake to grasp the acutely aware mind. self-contemplation could be a method of getting someone “look inward”, focus on, and check out to grasp the feeling or thought they’re experiencing at that moment.

    The Structuralism faculty of thought has influenced the scientific discipline in its pursuit of the analysis of the adult mind (the analysis of the assemblage of lifespan experiences). It seeks to gauge these experiences in terms of the only determinable parts and so makes an attempt to seek out however these parts work along to create additional advanced experiences. Another goal is to seek out however these experiences correlate to physical events; this exists often accomplished through practices like self-contemplation, self-reports (of sensations), viewpoints, feelings, and emotions.

    Sources;

    There are various sources such as books and articles that speak about structuralism. One such source is the article “How structuralism and functionalism influenced early psychology” written by Kendra Cherry. The article informs us that in the early 20-century Psychology existed separated from biology. At that time there was a raging debate in the scientific community on how the human mind and behavior worked. These questions led to the establishment of two major schools of Psychology. They included Structuralism and Functionalism. Structuralism was the first school of thought. Many if not all structuralism components existed idealized by who was also the founder of the first psychological lab.

    Later on, one of his students went on to formally establish structuralism as a theory. However, Edward’s ideas had misrepresented the teachings of Wundt. Almost immediately after the establishment of structuralism, other ideas emerged such as functionalism from thinkers like Charles Darwin. Furthermore, we learn that structuralism was the first school of psychology and focus on breaking down the mental process into basic elements. Researchers tried to learn the basic elements of the mind through a method known as introspection.

    Another sources;

    A second source of the formation, background, and development of structuralism is an article “Structuralism” written by Richard Hall. Richard informs us that in the past many advances in science were occurring due to the concept of “elements”. “Elements” referred to the conception of complex phenomena in terms of underlying elements. It was at this moment that what psychologists refer to as the first school of psychology stood established. A psychologist called Wilhelm Wundt started the first psychological laboratory in Leipzig, Germany. Hall further informs us that the school of psychology that Wundt championed existed called Structuralism. It led many people to refer to Wundt as the father of Structuralism.

    Structuralism stands fundamentally defined as the study of the human conscious. The rationale behind it is that the human consciousness could exist broken down into basic conscious elements. Most of the experiments conducted in Wundt’s laboratory involved cataloging primary conscious elements. To research the basic elements, structuralism relied on a method called introspection. An example is how someone can describe the basic elements of an orange (cold, juicy). Introspection involved describing each basic element separately from the complex entity. Through the use of this method, Wundt was able to catalog different human experiences in mind.

    Theory;

    Although structuralism stood established as a psychological theory, it faced a lot of criticism through the times. Many psychologists failed to accept the theoretical background of Structuralism. The experimental methods that existed used to study the structures of the mind were too subjective. Moreover, we also learn that using introspection, led to the unreliability of the data gotten. Others critics also argued that structuralism was concerned with internal human behaviors. Internal human behaviors exist considered non-observable and cannot exist accurately measured.

    Moreover, we also learn that structuralism faced more limitations such as not having its principal theory supported by most psychologists in the scientific world. In the present times, Structuralism considers being dead in psychology. Informs us that one reason why Structuralism faced criticism was because of a methodological flaw in Wundt’s structuralism. The theory relied on introspection which lacked subject agreement and reliability. In psychology, many observers must agree independently on phenomena. When it comes to Wundt’s Structuralism experiment, his observes were students trained by him. Wundt was also the one who resolved any disagreement of concepts during the experiments. The use of trained observers as opposed to the current practice of psychology.

    Criticism;

    However, the existence of criticism was not enough to undermine the strength of structuralism. It was important because it was the first school of thought. Structuralism led to the development of experimental psychology. Structuralism has been dead for many years since the passing of Wundt. Other sources differ on how Structuralism developed. The last alternative narrative of how structuralism existed formed is that Structuralism was a theory that existed introduced by psychologist Wilhelm Wundt and was later on popularized by Edward Titchener.

    An article written and submitted to the journal of Psychology informs us that, an example of Structuralism is a fleece blanket, it can be considered as warm, fuzzy, soft, and green. The breakdown of a complex component such as the fleece blanket to its basic elements is what’s considered structuralism. Another example is how an apple can describe as red, crisp, and sweet. Structuralism existed only interested in showing the basic elements of something and not the complex ideas. The person describing the apple or fleece blanket can only describe it to its most basic elements.

    In conclusion;

    Structuralism dictates that the total sum of parts that have been broken down is what makes up the whole “something.” Wundt mainly formed structuralism to focus on understanding the fundamental component of the human mind. Through the use of different processes such as introspection, he was able to conduct experiments on the conscious mind. This way Wundt subjectively identified what makes them experience those thoughts. However, the structural school lost considerable influence when Titchener died. In the end, structuralism led to the development of other theories such as behaviorism, functionalism, and Gestalt psychology.

    Structuralism Psychology Meaning Definition and Essay Image
    Structuralism Psychology Meaning, Definition, and Essay
  • Meaning and Definition of Cohesiveness Cohesive Cohesion

    Meaning and Definition of Cohesiveness Cohesive Cohesion

    Cohesiveness Meaning and Definition, Cohesive or Cohesion refers back to the degree of team spirit or “we-ness” in a collection. More formally, they denote the energy of all ties that link individuals to a set. These ties can be social or mission-orientated. Specifically, a group this is tied together with the aid of mutual friendship, caring, or non-public liking is showing social cohesion.

    Here is the article to explain, What is the Meaning and Definition of Cohesiveness, Cohesive, and Cohesion?

    A group this ties together by way of shared goals or duties is displaying undertaking cohesive. Social and assignment can arise at an equal time, however, they do no longer have to. For instance, a group of pals can be very cohesive just due to the fact they enjoy spending time collectively, no matter whether or no longer they share similar dreams. Conversely, a hockey team can be very cohesive, without liking each different personality; because the gamers strongly pursue a commonplace goal.

    Consequences of Cohesiveness;

    An excessive degree of cohesion is a double-edged sword. Positive effects include a higher dedication to, and responsibility for, the organization. Also, pleasure with the group is better inside cohesive organizations. Furthermore, there may be a high-quality relationship between the diploma of them and the overall performance of a group. Although the route of causality among overall performance and remains disputed (in reality, cohesive and overall performance seem to mutually affect each other); cohesive organizations are in all likelihood to outperform noncohesive ones if the subsequent preconditions are met; First, the organization must be tied collectively using mission (in place of social). Second, the norms and standards inside the group should encourage excellence. Indeed, if the norm in a collection encourages low overall performance; growing they will bring about lower instead of better performance.

    Thus, depending on the norms present in a group, its performance hyperlink may be useful or damaging. Aside from potentially worse performance, bad consequences entail multiplied conformity and pressure toward unanimity. They might also consequently result in avoidance of war of words, groupthink, and as a result horrific choice making. Another negative consequence of specifically social may be maladaptive behavior if the composition of a set changes. Indeed, in cases in which it is high and mainly because of private liking; changes inside the group’s shape may additionally bring about the disengagement of organization participants.

    Enhancing Group Cohesiveness;

    Social cohesiveness can be greater by increasing liking and attraction among group participants. Liking may be greater, for instance, through growing the similarity of institution contributors (humans like folks who are just like them or percentage comparable reviews). The task there can be more desirable by using emphasizing similar desires and making sure that the pursued dreams are critical to all individuals. Both social and undertaking cohesive can promote via encouraging voluntary interaction among organization individuals or by using creating a unique and attractive identity of the institution, for instance, by using introducing a commonplace logo or uniform. Finally, it is usually larger in small businesses.

    Cohesive groups are those in which their contributors properly integrate, paintings nicely collectively, and do not need to separate. Learn the definition and importance of group cohesiveness, evaluate its positive and terrible consequences; and explore the elements that have an effect on organization cohesion thru some examples.

    Group Cohesiveness Defined;

    Imagine you are on a peace mission with 3 co-workers and are not able to make development due to war. Or perhaps you’re in a remedy institution for melancholy and feel connected to, and safe with, the other organization individuals. These are examples of group cohesion sorts that possibly revel in at the same time as being a member of a collection.

    Group cohesiveness may define as a bond that pulls humans toward a club in a particular organization and resists separation from that institution. In addition, organization brotherly love typically has three traits. They include the subsequent:

    • Interpersonal Attraction; This means institution individuals have a desire or need to engage with every different. Group participants experience this interplay and are looking for it out.
    • Group Pride; This entails institution members viewing their club to a selected institution with fondness. They sense happiness with their institution club, and staying in the group feels valuable.
    • Commitment to the Work of the Group; Group contributors value the work of the institution and consider its goals. They incline to paintings together to complete tasks that align with these organization dreams, even via adversity.
    What is the Meaning and Definition of Cohesiveness Cohesive and Cohesion Image
    What is the Meaning and Definition of Cohesiveness, Cohesive, and Cohesion? Image by Manfred Steger from Pixabay.
  • Validity

    Validity

    What is Validity?

    The most crucial issue in test construction is validity. Whereas reliability addresses issues of consistency, validity assesses what the test is to be accurate about. A test that is valid for clinical assessment should measure what it is intended to measure and should also produce information useful to clinicians. A psychological test cannot be said to be valid in any abstract or absolute sense, but more practically, it must be valid in a particular context and for a specific group of people (Messick, 1995). Although a test can be reliable without being valid, the opposite is not true; a necessary prerequisite for validity is that the test must have achieved an adequate level of reliability. Thus, a valid test is one that accurately measures the variable it is intended to measure. For example, a test comprising questions about a person’s musical preference might erroneously state that it is a test of creativity. The test might be reliable in the sense that if it is given to the same person on different occasions, it produces similar results each time. However, it would not be reliable in that an investigation might indicate it does not correlate with other more valid measurements of creativity.

    Establishing the validity of a test can be extremely difficult, primarily because psychological variables are usually abstract concepts such as intelligence, anxiety, and personality. These concepts have no tangible reality, so their existence must be inferred through indirect means. In addition, conceptualization and research on constructs undergo change over time requiring that test validation go through continual refinement (G. Smith & McCarthy, 1995). In constructing a test, a test designer must follow two necessary, initial steps. First, the construct must be theoretically evaluated and described; second, specific operations (test questions) must be developed to measure it (S. Haynes et al., 1995). Even when the designer has followed these steps closely and conscientiously, it is sometimes difficult to determine what the test really measures. For example, IQ tests are good predictors of academic success, but many researchers question whether they adequately measure the concept of intelligence as it is theoretically described. Another hypothetical test that, based on its item content, might seem to measure what is described as musical aptitude may in reality be highly correlated with verbal abilities. Thus, it may be more a measure of verbal abilities than of musical aptitude.

    Any estimate of validity is concerned with relationships between the test and some external independently observed event. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council for Measurement in Education [NCME], 1999; G. Morgan, Gliner, & Harmon, 2001) list the three main methods of establishing validity as content-related, criterion-related, and construct-related.

    Content Validity

    During the initial construction phase of any test, the developers must first be concerned with its content validity. This refers to the representativeness and relevance of the assessment instrument to the construct being measured. During the initial item selection, the constructors must carefully consider the skills or knowledge area of the variable they would like to measure. The items are then generated based on this conceptualization of the variable. At some point, it might be decided that the item content over-represents, under-represents, or excludes specific areas, and alterations in the items might be made accordingly. If experts on subject matter are used to determine the items, the number of these experts and their qualifications should be included in the test manual. The instructions they received and the extent of agreement between judges should also be provided. A good test covers not only the subject matter being measured, but also additional variables. For example, factual knowledge may be one criterion, but the application of that knowledge and the ability to analyze data are also important. Thus, a test with high content validity must cover all major aspects of the content area and must do so in the correct proportion.

    A concept somewhat related to content validity is face validity. These terms are not synonymous, however, because content validity pertains to judgments made by experts, whereas face validity concerns judgments made by the test users. The central issue in face validity is test rapport. Thus, a group of potential mechanics who are being tested for basic skills in arithmetic should have word problems that relate to machines rather than to business transactions. Face validity, then, is present if the test looks good to the persons taking it, to policymakers who decide to include it in their programs, and to other untrained personnel. Despite the potential importance of face validity in regard to test-taking attitudes, disappointingly few formal studies on face validity are performed and/or reported in test manuals.

    In the past, content validity has been conceptualized and operationalized as being based on the subjective judgment of the test developers. As a result, it has been regarded as the least preferred form of test validation, albeit necessary in the initial stages of test development. In addition, its usefulness has been primarily focused at achievement tests (how well has this student learned the content of the course?) and personnel selection (does this applicant know the information relevant to the potential job?). More recently, it has become used more extensively in personality and clinical assessment (Butcher, Graham, Williams, & Ben-Porath, 1990; Millon, 1994). This has paralleled more rigorous and empirically based approaches to content validity along with a closer integration to criterion and construct validation.

    Criterion Validity

    A second major approach to determining validity is criterion validity, which has also been called empirical or predictive validity. Criterion validity is determined by comparing test scores with some sort of performance on an outside measure. The outside measure should have a theoretical relation to the variable that the test is supposed to measure. For example, an intelligence test might be correlated with grade point average; an aptitude test, with independent job ratings or general maladjustment scores, with other tests measuring similar dimensions. The relation between the two measurements is usually expressed as a correlation coefficient.

    Criterion-related validity is most frequently divided into either concurrent or predictive validity. Concurrent validity refers to measurements taken at the same, or approximately the same, time as the test. For example, an intelligence test might be administered at the same time as assessments of a group’s level of academic achievement. Predictive validity refers to outside measurements that were taken some time after the test scores were derived. Thus, predictive validity might be evaluated by correlating the intelligence test scores with measures of academic achievement a year after the initial testing. Concurrent validation is often used as a substitute for predictive validation because it is simpler, less expensive, and not as time consuming. However, the main consideration in deciding whether concurrent or predictive validation is preferable depends on the test’s purpose. Predictive validity is most appropriate for tests used for selection and classification of personnel. This may include hiring job applicants, placing military personnel in specific occupational training programs, screening out individuals who are likely to develop emotional disorders, or identifying which category of psychiatric populations would be most likely to benefit from specific treatment approaches. These situations all require that the measurement device provide a prediction of some future outcome. In contrast, concurrent validation is preferable if an assessment of the client’s current status is required, rather than a prediction of what might occur to the client at some future time. The distinction can be summarized by asking “Is Mr. Jones maladjusted?” (concurrent validity) rather than “Is Mr. Jones likely to become maladjusted at some future time?” (predictive validity).

    An important consideration is the degree to which a specific test can be applied to a unique work-related environment (see Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996). This relates more to the social value and consequences of the assessment than the formal validity as reported in the test manual (Messick, 1995). In other words, can the test under consideration provide accurate assessments and predictions for the environment in which the examinee is working? To answer this question adequately, the examiner must refer to the manual and assess the similarity between the criteria used to establish the test’s validity and the situation to which he or she would like to apply the test. For example, can an aptitude test that has adequate criterion validity in the prediction of high school grade point average also be used to predict academic achievement for a population of college students? If the examiner has questions regarding the relative applicability of the test, he or she may need to undertake a series of specific tasks. The first is to identify the required skills for adequate performance in the situation involved. For example, the criteria for a successful teacher may include such attributes as verbal fluency, flexibility, and good public speaking skills. The examiner then must determine the degree to which each skill contributes to the quality of a teacher’s performance. Next, the examiner has to assess the extent to which the test under consideration measures each of these skills. The final step is to evaluate the extent to which the attribute that the test measures are relevant to the skills the examiner needs to predict. Based on these evaluations, the examiner can estimate the confidence that he or she places in the predictions developed from the test. This approach is sometimes referred to as synthetic validity because examiners must integrate or synthesize the criteria reported in the test manual with the variables they encounter in their clinical or organizational settings.

    The strength of criterion validity depends in part on the type of variable being measured. Usually, intellectual or aptitude tests give relatively higher validity coefficients than personality tests because there are generally a greater number of variables influencing personality than intelligence. As the number of variables that influences the trait being measured increases, it becomes progressively more difficult to account for them. When a large number of variables are not accounted for, the trait can be affected in unpredictable ways. This can create a much wider degree of fluctuation in the test scores, thereby lowering the validity coefficient. Thus, when evaluating a personality test, the examiner should not expect as high a validity coefficient as for intellectual or aptitude tests. A helpful guide is to look at the validities found in similar tests and compare them with the test being considered. For example, if an examiner wants to estimate the range of validity to be expected for the extra-version scale on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, he or she might compare it with the validities for similar scales found in the California Personality Inventory and Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. The relative level of validity, then, depends both on the quality of the construction of the test and on the variable being studied.

    An important consideration is the extent to which the test accounts for the trait being measured or the behavior being predicted. For example, the typical correlation between intelligence tests and academic performance is about .50 (Neisser et al., 1996). Because no one would say that grade point average is entirely the result of intelligence, the relative extent to which intelligence determines grade point average has to be estimated. This can be calculated by squaring the correlation coefficient and changing it into a percentage. Thus, if the correlation of .50 is squared, it comes out to 25%, indicating that 25% of academic achievement can be accounted for by IQ as measured by the intelligence test. The remaining 75% may include factors such as motivation, quality of instruction, and past educational experience. The problem facing the examiner is to determine whether 25% of the variance is sufficiently useful for the intended purposes of the test. This ultimately depends on the personal judgment of the examiner.

    The main problem confronting criterion validity is finding an agreed-on, definable, acceptable, and feasible outside criterion. Whereas for an intelligence test the grade point average might be an acceptable criterion, it is far more difficult to identify adequate criteria for most personality tests. Even with so-called intelligence tests, many researchers argue that it is more appropriate to consider them tests of scholastic aptitude rather than of intelligence. Yet another difficulty with criterion validity is the possibility that the criterion measure will be inadvertently biased. This is referred to as criterion contamination and occurs when knowledge of the test results influences an individual’s later performance. For example, a supervisor in an organization who receives such information about subordinates may act differently toward a worker placed in a certain category after being tested. This situation may set up negative or positive expectations for the worker, which could influence his or her level of performance. The result is likely to artificially alter the level of the validity coefficients. To work around these difficulties, especially in regard to personality tests, a third major method must be used to determine validity. 

    Construct Validity

    The method of construct validity was developed in part to correct the inadequacies and difficulties encountered with content and criterion approaches. Early forms of content validity relied too much on subjective judgment, while criterion validity was too restrictive in working with the domains or structure of the constructs being measured. Criterion validity had the further difficulty in that there was often a lack of agreement in deciding on adequate outside criteria. The basic approach of construct validity is to assess the extent to which the test measures a theoretical construct or trait. This assessment involves three general steps. Initially, the test constructor must make a careful analysis of the trait. This is followed by a consideration of the ways in which the trait should relate to other variables. Finally, the test designer needs to test whether these hypothesized relationships actually exist (Foster & Cone, 1995). For example, a test measuring dominance should have a high correlation with the individual accepting leadership roles and a low or negative correlation with measures of submissiveness. Likewise, a test measuring anxiety should have a high positive correlation with individuals who are measured during an anxiety-provoking situation, such as an experiment involving some sort of physical pain. As these hypothesized relationships are verified by research studies, the degree of confidence that can be placed in a test increases.

    There is no single, best approach for determining construct validity; rather, a variety of different possibilities exist. For example, if some abilities are expected to increase with age, correlations can be made between a population’s test scores and age. This may be appropriate for variables such as intelligence or motor coordination, but it would not be applicable for most personality measurements. Even in the measurement of intelligence or motor coordination, this approach may not be appropriate beyond the age of maturity. Another method for determining construct validity is to measure the effects of experimental or treatment interventions. Thus, a posttest measurement may be taken following a period of instruction to see if the intervention affected the test scores in relation to a previous pretest measure. For example, after an examinee completes a course in arithmetic, it would be predicted that scores on a test of arithmetical ability would increase. Often, correlations can be made with other tests that supposedly measure a similar variable. However, a new test that correlates too highly with existing tests may represent needless duplication unless it incorporates some additional advantage such as a shortened format, ease of administration, or superior predictive validity. Factor analysis is of particular relevance to construct validation because it can be used to identify and assess the relative strength of different psychological traits. Factor analysis can also be used in the design of a test to identify the primary factor or factors measured by a series of different tests. Thus, it can be used to simplify one or more tests by reducing the number of categories to a few common factors or traits. The factorial validity of a test is the relative weight or loading that a factor has on the test. For example, if a factor analysis of a measure of psychopathology determined that the test was composed of two clear factors that seemed to be measuring anxiety and depression, the test could be considered to have factorial validity. This would be especially true if the two factors seemed to be accounting for a clear and large portion of what the test was measuring.

    Another method used in construct validity is to estimate the degree of internal consistency by correlating specific subtests with the test’s total score. For example, if a subtest on an intelligence test does not correlate adequately with the overall or Full Scale IQ, it should be either eliminated or altered in a way that increases the correlation. A final method for obtaining construct validity is for a test to converge or correlate highly with variables that are theoretically similar to it. The test should not only show this convergent validity but also have discriminate validity, in which it would demonstrate low or negative correlations with variables that are dissimilar to it. Thus, scores on reading comprehension should show high positive correlations with performance in a literature class and low correlations with performance in a class involving mathematical computation.

    Related to discriminant and convergent validity is the degree of sensitivity and specificity an assessment device demonstrates in identifying different categories. Sensitivity refers to the percentage of true positives that the instrument has identified, whereas specificity is the relative percentage of true negatives. A structured clinical interview might be quite sensitive in that it would accurately identify 90% of schizophrenics in an admitting ward of a hospital. However, it may not be sufficiently specific in that 30% of schizophrenics would be incorrectly classified as either normal or having some other diagnosis. The difficulty in determining sensitivity and specificity lies in developing agreed-on, objectively accurate outside criteria for categories such as psychiatric diagnosis, intelligence, or personality traits.

    As indicated by the variety of approaches discussed, no single, quick, efficient method exists for determining construct validity. It is similar to testing a series of hypotheses in which the results of the studies determine the meanings that can be attached to later test scores (Foster & Cone, 1995; Messick, 1995). Almost any data can be used, including material from the content and criterion approaches. The greater the amount of supporting data, the greater is the level of confidence with which the test can be used. In many ways, construct validity represents the strongest and most sophisticated approach to test construction. In many ways, all types of validity can be considered as subcategories of construct validity. It involves theoretical knowledge of the trait or ability being measured, knowledge of other related variables, hypothesis testing, and statements regarding the relationship of the test variable to a network of other variables that have been investigated. Thus, construct validation is a never-ending process in which new relationships always can be verified and investigated.

  • Reliability: Definition, Methods, and Example

    Reliability: Definition, Methods, and Example

    Uncover the true definition of reliability. Understand why reliability is crucial for machines, systems, and test results to perform consistently and accurately. What is Reliability? The quality of being trustworthy or performing consistently well. The degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification can depend on to be accurate.

    Here expiration of Reliability with their topic Definition, Methods, and Example.

    Definition of Reliability? The ability of an apparatus, machine, or system to consistently perform its intended or required function or mission, on-demand, and without degradation or failure.

    Manufacturing: The probability of failure-free performance over an item’s useful life, or a specified time-frame, under specified environmental and duty-cycle conditions. Often expressed as mean time between failures (MTBF) or reliability coefficient. Also called quality over time.

    Consistency and validity of test results determined through statistical methods after repeated trials.

    The reliability of a test refers to its degree of stability, consistency, predictability, and accuracy. It addresses the extent to which scores obtained by a person are the same if the person is reexamined by the same test on different occasions. Underlying the concept of reliability is the possible range of error, or error of measurement, of a single score.

    This is an estimate of the range of possible random fluctuation that can expect in an individual’s? score. It should stress; however, that a certain degree of error or noise is always present in the system; from such factors as a misreading of the items, poor administration procedures; or the changing mood of the client. If there is a large degree of random fluctuation; the examiner cannot place a great deal of confidence in an individual’s scores.

    Testing in Trials:

    The goal of a test constructor is to reduce, as much as possible; the degree of measurement error, or random fluctuation. If this is achieved, the difference between one score and another for a measured characteristic is more likely to result from some true difference than from some chance fluctuation. Two main issues related to the degree of error in a test. The first is the inevitable, natural variation in human performance.

    Usually, the variability is less for measurements of ability than for those of personality. Whereas ability variables (intelligence, mechanical aptitude, etc.) show gradual changes resulting from growth and development; many personality traits are much more highly dependent on factors such as mood. This is particularly true in the case of a characteristic such as anxiety.

    The practical significance of this in evaluating a test is that certain factors outside the test itself can serve to reduce the reliability that the test can realistically expect to achieve. Thus, an examiner should generally expect higher reliabilities for an intelligence test than for a test measuring a personality variable such as anxiety. It is the examiner’s responsibility to know what being measure; especially the degree of variability to expect in the measured trait.

    The second important issue relating to reliability is that psychological testing methods are necessarily imprecise. For the hard sciences, researchers can make direct measurements such as the concentration of a chemical solution; the relative weight of one organism compared with another, or the strength of radiation. In contrast, many constructs in psychology are often measured indirectly.

    For example;

    Intelligence cannot perceive directly; it must infer by measuring behavior that has been defined as being intelligent. Variability relating to these inferences is likely to produce a certain degree of error resulting from the lack of precision in defining and observing inner psychological constructs. Variability in measurement also occurs simply; because people have true (not because of test error) fluctuations in performance between one testing session and the next.

    Whereas it is impossible to control for the natural variability in human performance; adequate test construction can attempt to reduce the imprecision that is a function of the test itself. Natural human variability and test imprecision make the task of measurement extremely difficult. Although some error in testing is inevitable; the goal of test construction is to keep testing errors within reasonably accepted limits.

    A high correlation is generally .80 or more, but the variable being measured also changes the expected strength of the correlation. Likewise, the method of determining reliability alters the relative strength of the correlation. Ideally, clinicians should hope for correlations of .90 or higher in tests that are used to make decisions about individuals, whereas a correlation of .70 or more is generally adequate for research purposes.

    Methods of reliability:

    The purpose of reliability is to estimate the degree of test variance caused by the error. The four primary methods of obtaining reliability involve determining;

    • The extent to which the test produces consistent results on retesting (test-retest).
    • The relative accuracy of a test at a given time (alternate forms).
    • Internal consistency of the items (split half), and.
    • Degree of agreement between two examiners (inter-scorer).

    Another way to summarize this is that reliability can be time to time (test-retest), form to form (alternate forms), item to item (split half), or scorer to scorer (inter-scorer). Although these are the main types of reliability, there is a fifth type, the Kuder-Richardson; like the split-half, it is a measurement of the internal consistency of the test items. However, because this method is considered appropriate only for tests that are relatively pure measures of a single variable, it does not cover in this book. 

    Test-Retest Reliability:

    Test-retest reliability is determined by administering the test and then repeating it on a second occasion. The reliability coefficient is calculated by correlating the scores obtained by the same person on the two different administrations. The degree of correlation between the two scores indicates the extent to which the test scores can generalize from one situation to the next.

    If the correlations are high, the results are less likely to cause by random fluctuations in the condition of the examinee or the testing environment. Thus, when the test is being used in actual practice; the examiner can be relatively confident that differences in scores are the result of an actual change in the trait being measured rather than random fluctuation.

    Several factors must consider in assessing the appropriateness of test-retest reliability. One is that the interval between administrations can affect reliability. Thus, a test manual should specify the interval as well as any significant life changes that the examinees may have experienced such as counseling, career changes, or psychotherapy.

    For example;

    Tests of preschool intelligence often give reasonably high correlations if the second administration is within several months of the first one. However, correlations with later childhood or adult IQ are generally low because of innumerable intervening life changes. One of the major difficulties with test-retest reliability is the effect that practice and memory may have on performance; which can produce improvement between one administration and the next.

    This is a particular problem for speeded and memory tests such as those found on the Digit Symbol and Arithmetic sub-tests of the WAIS-III. Additional sources of variation may be the result of random, short-term fluctuations in the examinee, or variations in the testing conditions. In general, test-retest reliability is the preferred method only if the variable being measured is relatively stable. If the variable is highly changeable (e.g., anxiety), this method is usually not adequate. 

    Alternate Forms:

    The alternate forms method avoids many of the problems encountered with test-retest reliability. The logic behind alternate forms is that; if the trait measures several times on the same individual by using parallel forms of the test; the different measurements should produce similar results. The degree of similarity between the scores represents the reliability coefficient of the test.

    As in the test-retest method, the interval between administrations should always include in the manual as well as a description of any significant intervening life experiences. If the second administration gave immediately after the first; the resulting reliability is more a measure of the correlation between forms and not across occasions.

    More things:

    Correlations determined by tests given with a wide interval; such as two months or more provide a measure of both the relation between forms and the degree of temporal stability. The alternate forms method eliminates many carryover effects; such as the recall of previous responses the examinee has made to specific items.

    However, there is still likely to be some carryover effect in that the examinee can learn to adapt to the overall style of the test even when the specific item content between one test and another is unfamiliar. This is most likely when the test involves some sort of problem-solving strategy in which the same principle in solving one problem can use to solve the next one.

    An examinee, for example, may learn to use mnemonic aids to increase his or her performance on an alternate form of the WAIS-III Digit Symbol subtest. Perhaps the primary difficulty with alternate forms lies in determining whether the two forms are equivalent.

    For example;

    If one test is more difficult than its alternate form, the difference in scores may represent actual differences in the two tests rather than differences resulting from the unreliability of the measure. Because the test constructor is attempting to measure the reliability of the test itself and not the differences between the tests, this could confound and lower the reliability coefficient.

    Alternate forms should independently construct tests that use the same specifications, including the same number of items, type of content, format, and manner of administration. A final difficulty encounters primarily when there is a delay between one administration and the next. With such a delay, the examinee may perform differently because of short-term fluctuations such as mood, stress level, or the relative quality of the previous night’s sleep.

    Thus, an examinee’s abilities may vary somewhat from one examination to another, thereby affecting test results. Despite these problems, alternate forms reliability has the advantage of at least reducing, if not eliminating, any carryover effects of the test-retest method. A further advantage is that the alternate test forms can be useful for other purposes, such as assessing the effects of a treatment program or monitoring a patient’s changes over time by administering the different forms on separate occasions. 

    Split Half Reliability:

    The split-half method is the best technique for determining reliability for a trait with a high degree of fluctuation. Because the test given only once, the items are split in half, and the two halves correlate. As there is only one administration, the effects of time can’t intervene as they might with the test-retest method.

    Thus, the split-half method gives a measure of the internal consistency of the test items rather than the temporal stability of different administrations of the same test. To determine split-half reliability, the test often split based on odd and even items. This method is usually adequate for most tests. Dividing the test into a first half and second half can be effective in some cases; but is often inappropriate because of the cumulative effects of warming up fatigue, and boredom; all of which can result in different levels of performance on the first half of the test compared with the second.

    As is true with the other methods of obtaining reliability; the split-half method has limitations. When a test is split in half; there are fewer items on each half; which results in wider variability because the individual responses cannot stabilize as easily around a mean. As a general principle, the longer a test is; the more reliable it is because the larger the number of items; the easier it is for the majority of items to compensate for minor alterations in responding to a few of the other items. As with the alternate forms method; differences in the content may exist between one half and another.

    Inter-scorer Reliability:

    In some tests, scoring is based partially on the judgment of the examiner. Because judgment may vary between one scorer and the next; it may be important to assess the extent to which reliability might affect. This is especially true for projects and even for some ability tests where hard scorers may produce results somewhat different from easy scorers.

    This variance in interscorer reliability may apply for global judgments based on test scores such as brain injury versus normal; or, for small details of scoring such as whether a person has given a shading versus a texture response on the Rorschach. The basic strategy for determining interscorer reliability is to obtain a series of responses from a single client and to have these responses scored by two different individuals.

    A variation is to have two different examiners test the same client using the same test; and, then to determine how close their scores or ratings of the person are. The two sets of scores can then correlate to determine a reliability coefficient. Any test that requires even partial subjectivity in scoring should provide information on interscorer reliability.

    The best form of reliability is dependent on both the nature of the variable being measured; and, the purposes for which the test uses. If the trait or ability being measured is highly stable; the test-retest method is preferable; whereas split half is more appropriate for characteristics that are highly subject to fluctuations. When using a test to make predictions, the test-retest method is preferable; because it gives an estimate of the dependability of the test from one administration to the next.

    More things:

    This is particularly true if, when determining reliability; an increased time interval existed between the two administrations. If, on the other hand, the examiner is concerned with the internal consistency and accuracy of a test for a single, one-time measure, either the split-half of the alternative forms would be best.

    Another consideration in evaluating the acceptable range of reliability is the format of the test. Longer tests usually have higher reliabilities than shorter ones. Also, the format of the responses affects reliability. For example, a true-false format is likely to have lower reliability than multiple choice because each true-false item has a 50% possibility of the answer being correct by chance.

    In contrast, each question in a multiple-choice format having five possible choices has only a 20% possibility of being correct by chance. A final consideration is that tests with various subtests or subscales should report the reliability for the overall test as well as for each of the subtests. In general, the overall test score has significantly higher reliability than its subtests. In estimating the confidence with which test scores can interpret; the examiner should take into account the lower reliabilities of the subtests.

    1] For example;

    A Full-Scale IQ on the WAIS-III can interpret with more confidence than the specific subscale scores. Most test manuals include a statistical index of the amount of error that can expect test scores; which refers to the standard error of measurement (SEM). The logic behind the SEM is that test scores consist of both truth and error.

    Thus, there is always noise or error in the system, and the SEM provides a range to indicate how extensive that error is likely to be. The range depends on the test’s reliability so that the higher the reliability, the narrower the range of error. The SEM is a standard deviation score so that, for example, an SEM of 3 on an intelligence test would indicate that an individual’s score has a 68% chance of being ± 3 IQ points from the estimated true score.

    Result of Score:

    This is because the SEM of 3 represents a band extending from -1 to +1 standard deviations above and below the mean. Likewise, there would be a 95% chance that the individual’s score would fall within a range of ± 5 points from the estimated true score. From a theoretical perspective, the SEM is a statistical index of how a person’s repeat scores on a specific test would fall around a normal distribution.

    Thus, it is a statement of the relationship among a person’s obtain score; his or her theoretically true score, and the test reliability. Because it is an empirical statement of the probable range of scores; the SEM has more practical usefulness than a knowledge of the test reliability. This band of error also refer to as a confidence interval.

    The acceptable range of reliability is difficult to identify and depends partially on the variable being measured. In general; unstable aspects (states) of the person produce lower reliabilities than stable ones (traits). Thus, in evaluating a test, the examiner should expect higher reliabilities on stable traits or abilities than on changeable states.

    2] For example;

    A person’s general fund of vocabulary words is highly stable and therefore produces high reliabilities. In contrast, a person’s level of anxiety is often highly changeable. This means examiners should not expect nearly as high reliabilities for anxiety as for an ability measure such as vocabulary. Further consideration also related to the stability of the trait; or, the ability is the method of reliability that uses.

    Alternate forms consider giving the lowest estimate of the actual reliability of a test; while split-half provides the highest estimate. Another important way to estimate the adequacy of reliability is by comparing the reliability derived on other similar tests. The examiner can then develop a sense of the expected levels of reliability, which provides a baseline for comparisons.

    Result of example;

    In the example of anxiety, a clinician may not know what is an acceptable level of reliability. A general estimate can make by comparing the reliability of the test under consideration with other tests measuring the same or a similar variable. The most important thing to keep in mind is that lower levels of reliability usually suggest that less confidence can place in the interpretations and predictions based on the test data.

    However, clinical practitioners are less likely to concern with low statistical reliability; if they have some basis for believing the test is a valid measure of the client’s state at the time of testing. The main consideration is that the sign or test score does not mean one thing at one time and something different at another.