Share This Article
This is a blog post that discusses the question of why descriptive investigations are not repeatable. The reason is because it’s difficult to capture all variables in an experiment and quantify them on paper, which can lead to different results each time.
In the real world, it is difficult to produce an experiment that can be repeated. This has been known as a problem for scientists and researchers since its inception. The reason behind this difficulty is because it’s hard to capture all of the variables in an experiment – which would include things like time of day or air conditioner on/off – and then quantify them on paper accurately enough so that you’re able to reproduce your results exactly each time. If there are any slight differences between tests, they will lead to different outcomes every time.
The best way around this issue seems to be with controlled experiments where participants come into a lab setting at various times throughout the week and answer questions about their moods, energy levels, etcetera. This way, you have a lot more control over the experiment and make sure that there are no variables in your study.
In an uncontrolled environment, it’s difficult to understand what may be causing these differences – whether they’re related to the season or biology of each person. You also can’t tell how much one variable impacts another so you don’t know which factor is responsible for any given change in results. In fact, during some studies with controlled environments like labs where participants come into at various times throughout the week and answer questions about their moods, energy levels, etcetera – researchers found out that people weren’t being honest when answering certain self-report measures because they didn’t want to give themselves bad marks.
In controlled environments, it’s easier to control for any variables that may be affecting your study. You also have a better idea of how much one variable impacts another in order to know which factor is responsible for changes in the results – so you can make more accurate conclusions about what changed and why. For example, researchers found out that people weren’t being honest when answering certain self-report measures because they didn’t want to give themselves bad marks (in labs where participants come into at various times throughout the week). This was due mainly to the season or biology of each person. Knowing this information helped them change their measurement process and improve accuracy. With these improvements, they were able to see other relationships between factors such as moods, or even how a person’s mood changes over the course of their week.
How a person’s mood changes over the course of their week.
In order to know which factor is responsible for changes in the results – so you can make more accurate conclusions about what changed and why, it must be possible to identify if something has actually changed or not. This means that before any measurements are taken, investigators need some way of knowing when they measure who their participants will report on accurately even though people might change as time goes by. Otherwise, researchers would have no idea whether someone was being dishonest with them or just changing naturally without realizing it because there wouldn’t be anything specific enough in between sessions to notice a difference. For example, researchers found out that people weren’t being honest when answering certain self-report questions when they were told to answer in a certain way. This is why researchers need some form of consistency that relies on what people report at the end and not just how much time has passed since their last measurement session.
The problems with reliability arise because there are many factors that can cause changes to your measurements, which means you’ll never know if these differences mean anything or not. You might find out later that someone changed without realizing it between sessions but was honest about this change during both interviews.
for example – so even though they said something different than before, they weren’t being dishonest by changing over time themselves! There’s also no way of knowing whether someone who doesn’t mention any major life events really didn’t have them happen or just forgot to mention them.
There are also more subtle differences that can affect reliability if people change their behavior during the study, which might not be a bad thing from an experimental perspective but will still make it difficult to compare before and after measurements. For example, some studies have found that when participants know they’re being observed for changes in behavior (like smoking or physical activity) then this “awareness” about what’s going on leads to increased levels of these behaviors – so we wouldn’t see any difference even though there was one! When you add all those factors up it means that there is no way of knowing whether someone actually changed over time without repeating everything from scratch with each measurement session, which is just too expensive and messy for most studies.
In short, we have to be careful when interpreting single measures of change and that is why many studies include more than one measurement period. That way it’s easier to say with confidence whether someone has “changed” over time because the data will show a pattern or trend (i.e., increase/decrease) in behaviors over time as opposed to just observing what happens at one specific point in time!
This content was written by __ on behalf of Sleepopolis.com for educational purposes only and should not replace medical advice given by an authorized professional. If you are interested in learning about how products were mentioned please refer back to our review article where each product name links out directly from the text found there – no sponsored posts were created and the content is not affiliated with any specific company.
Why Don’t Descriptive Investigations Repeatable
The idea behind a scientific research study is to see how something changes over time. But, when it comes to descriptive investigations (a type of observational investigation) we are only looking at one point in time. Why? Well, because the data will show us patterns or trends that might not be apparent from just observing what happens at one specific point in time!
If you’re interested in learning about the different types of observations used by researchers please click here for more information on “types of research”. This content was written by __ on behalf of Sleepopolis for educational purposes only and should not replace medical advice given by an authorized professional. If you have any questions pertaining to how this post relates specifically to your needs please feel free to contact our experts for more individualized counseling. Why Don’t Descriptive Investigations Repeatable? | Sleepopolis BlogIn the world of research and science, there is a specific type that you may not have heard about before: descriptive investigations (a type of observational investigation) For those who are unfamiliar with this term, it comes from a branch in psychology called phenomenology. One definition of this word would be “to describe” but it also encompasses looking at patterns or trends and then describing them to others so they can better understand what’s happening. The data gathered through these exploratory studies should answer questions like “What was observed?” or “Where did things happen?”. In essence, descriptive observances are used to find the answers to a researcher
