Lab Report on Alcohol Use
Method Participants [Things to include here: overall sample size, gender distribution (raw number and percentage), age range, average and standard deviation]. Materials Age Participants were asked to enter their age in whole years. Gender Participants were asked ‘What is your gender?” with response options being “Male”, “Female”, “Transgender” and “Other”. Only Males and Females responded to the current survey, therefore making this a dichotomous variable. Message Frame Conditions – Experimental intervention Following Collymore and McDermott (2016) participants were randomly allocated to a questionnaire in which one of six photographs occurred accompanied by a unique health persuasion message. There were two fear-loss framed communications, two gain-framed communications and two disgust-loss framed communications. These text and picture combinations can be seen on page 1911 of Collymore and McDermott (2016). Participants were instructed to look at the photo and read the health-related text to its right, then to complete the remainder of the questionnaire. Drinking Intentions Intentions to Reduce Current Levels of Alcohol Consumption was assessed by a question asking participants: To what extent do you intend to reduce your current level of alcohol consumption? This question was answered on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating greater intentions to reduce alcohol consumption. Non-drinking Motives Following Bekman et al. (2011), five items from the Motives for Abstaining from Alcohol Questionnaire (MAAQ: Stritzke & Butt, 2001) were averaged to create an abbreviated measure summarizing key reasons for not drinking. Each item was rated on a 5 point scale (not at all important to extremely important). This measure has demonstrated strong reliability previously ( = .82; Bekman et al., 2011), as well as in the current sample ( = .89). Procedure Participants were adults who were invited to participate via social media advertisements. The study was conducted via an online survey platform (Qualtrics). Participants who consented to take part in the study were provided a link to the questionnaire. Participants were then randomly assigned to an experimental condition (message framing conditions) and completed the questionnaire. Major assignment seminar 1 26/03/2019 1 Lab Report Session DUE: THURSDAY APRIL 18 2019, 8:00PM AEST 26/03/2019 2 Key Materials Lab Report Instructions Example lab report Marking rubric (see HPS301 or HPS781) Data_set Method Guidance for Lab Report Readings.pdf Replication Extension Studies Video Readings 26/03/2019 3 26/03/2019 4 Mark breakdown HPS301 HPS781 Abstract (5) Abstract (5) Introduction (15) Introduction (15) Method (5) Method (5) Results (35) Results (35) Discussion (35) Discussion (35) Writing (5) Writing (5) Critical Reflection (20) 26/03/2019 5 Abstract A brief, executive summary of the study. i.e. What happened? Why is this worth reading? Be concise Omit irrelevant, redundant information Aims/rationale (be very brief)? Who was sampled? Variables used (in terms of constructs rather than scales) Results of analyses Relevance of findings/Implications/Conclusion 26/03/2019 6 Abstract Where to look (in order of priority)? Lab Report Instructions Example lab report (guidance rather than specifications) Marking Rubric (to see what your marker will be looking for) APA style guide (for style guidance not found elsewhere) 26/03/2019 7 Introduction The purpose of the intro is to: 1. Introduce the topic and build a rationale for the study 2. Introduce relevant content such as definitions and relationships as needed 3. Provide a rationale for the study (for both our hypotheses and for the replication-extension aspect) 4. Provide rationales for the predictions/hypotheses made See ‘Guidance for Lab Report Readings.pdf’ to guide your reading in Assignment Guide. 26/03/2019 8 How to write a good intro? Introduce the general topic in a way that motivates readers’ attention ◦ What is the topic? ◦ What is the problem? Introduce ideas relevant to the general topic that funnel your readers toward your aim and hypotheses What is of relevance in our readings? Why is their a need for replication-extension? Make specific, justified hypotheses. Typical problem: - Integration of content, narrative flow not collection of abstracts 26/03/2019 9 How to write a good intro? When going through the readings, take notes but keep it only to the information which is going to allow you to justify the current study (some clues in the ‘Guidance for Lab Report Reading’ document) Some of the analyses in the readings are complex and do not need to be understood. Instead focus on the meaning of their findings/conclusions. If discussing their more complex analyses stick to significant differences or pos/neg relationships (i.e., do not guess at the interpretation of complex analyses) 26/03/2019 10 Hypotheses Be specific (within reason) Turn research questions into testable hypotheses (see the research questions in the ‘Background to the study’ section of the Lab Report Instructions page). There is no set number of hypotheses but they should map nicely onto the research questions. See examples of hypotheses from Seminar materials For between groups analyses: ◦ What groups are being compared? ◦ Compared on what? ◦ What is the predicted outcome (based on literature and reasoning)? For regression analyses: ◦ What are the predicted relationships? ◦ What about combined, individual, and relative effects? 26/03/2019 11 Introduction Where to look (in order of priority)? Lab Report Instructions page ◦ Background section ◦ Introduction section Guidance for Lab Report Readings.pdf Replication Extension Studies Video Example lab report (guidance for the structure) Marking Rubric (to see what your marker will be looking for) APA style guide (https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/670/07/ ) https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/670/07/ 26/03/2019 12 Methods I’m giving you most of the method section (cut and paste is fine) Except… Write your own participants section (see specific requirements as set out in the ‘Method’ and ‘Lab Report Instructions’ documents) and the rest can be ‘cut-and-pasted’ from the ‘Method’ document (leave out the reference list information from your Method). To get Participants details, analyse the data-file (descriptives) Format to APA 6th 26/03/2019 13 Results Descriptives then inferential statistics. Table the descriptives (all variables included in ONLY the regression analysis), describe one or two of these descriptives (see ‘example lab report’) Your reported stats should correspond to the hypotheses you make Write up ANOVA in‐text (see seminars 4/5 for APA examples) Write up regression in‐text (see seminar 3 for APA example) Be concise in this section, do not interpret 26/03/2019 14 Results • Issue 1: In your between-groups analysis, how do you find out exactly where any significant differences lie? • The necessary analyses are covered in Week 5, as this doesn’t give you much time I am only requiring you to conduct the simpler ‘post hoc’ analyses, rather than planned comparisons. • These ‘post hoc’ analyses will be covered briefly NOW and repeated in the Week 5 Seminars. • You can report these analyses in the same way as in your Seminar 5 slides, or as done in the Seminar Activity Answers doc – just replace the term ‘planned comparisons’ with ‘post hoc analyses’. 26/03/2019 15 ANOVA How do we know which groups are different? In week 5 we cover 2 approaches to doing multiple comparisons (‘a priori’ and ‘post-hoc’) For the assignment we have kept it simple and only require you to learn the ‘post hoc’ approach There are several ‘post-hoc’ approaches but we will use Tukey’s (see Field p. 550 if you want more detail on Tukey’s) 26/03/2019 16 Each of the treatment groups is compared with the other three groups. To see if the difference between a pair of means is significant, look at the Sig column. 26/03/2019 17 Post hoc analyses •How to report the post hoc tests? •Students can use the following description which I have modelled on the APA write- up of planned comparisons given in the Seminar Activity Answers (week 5) document: •"Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey’s HSD test were then conducted to evaluate whether future alcohol drinking intentions differed between the message framing conditions. Results of these post-hoc analyses revealed that individuals in the X group (M = X, SD = X) had significantly higher drinking intentions than individuals in the Y group (M = X, SD = X), and the Z group (M = X, SD = X) scored significantly lower than both of these groups." •Obviously you will need to include the correct statistics as well as accurately report which groups were significantly higher or lower (the above is just an example). 26/03/2019 18 Results Where to look (in order of priority)? Lab Report Instructions (Results section) Data set (run the analyses on this) Seminar materials for relevant analysis (see APA write-up questions in slides and Seminar Activity Answers doc) Example lab report (general structure – different analyses) Marking Rubric (to see what your marker will be looking for) 26/03/2019 19 Results Issue 2: How to report p values? In previous years we have used: p > .05 or p < .05="" however,="" now="" we="" will="" follow="" the="" latest="" apa="" format:="" ="" give="" exact="" p="" value="" except="" for="" when="" spss="" says="" p=".000" (this="" can="" never="" be="" true="" –="" in="" this="" case="" alone="" report="" p="">< .001)="" 26/03/2019="" 20="" discussion="" frame="" the="" story:="" restate="" aims="" &="" hypotheses="" address="" the="" predictions="" –="" are="" hypotheses="" supported?="" implications="" ◦="" what="" does="" this="" mean="" for="" past="" research?="" ◦="" what="" does="" this="" mean="" (generally;="" or="" for="" theory)?="" ◦="" are="" there="" practical="" implications?="" (important)="" 26/03/2019="" 21="" discussion="" continued.="" limitations="" ◦="" what="" were="" the="" limitations?="" ◦="" how="" would="" this="" limitation="" have="" affected="" your="" results="" and="" duly="" their="" interpretation?=""><- key future directions? conclusions 26/03/2019 22 what should i discuss? were things exactly as expected? e.g. 1) did different message frames influence future alcohol drinking intentions? were any particular message frames more effective? why or why not? e.g. 2) did age, gender and non-drinking motives predict intentions? e.g. 3) did we replicate previous findings? how? did we extend previous findings? how, and why was this important? why might you have gotten the findings you did? what did these findings add to the literature? how does this address your rationale (big picture)? 26/03/2019 23 discussion where to look (in order of priority)? lab report instructions (discussion) example lab report marking rubric (to see what your marker will be looking for) 26/03/2019 24 proof reading if you can organise it, give yourself a few days break after writing. when reading, if a point doesn’t contribute to your argument, cull it. 26/03/2019 25 word count 2000 words (10% leeway) what is excluded from the word count? ◦ abstract ◦ title page ◦ reference list (not in line citations) 26/03/2019 26 general guidance you’re writing a journal article, so think about how those are constructed. don’t get bogged down too much in the previous studies, they aren’t necessarily doing the same thing. ◦ aims, measures, sample, etc. do not quote write in your own (professional) voice 26/03/2019 27 more guidance synthesise! several studies have shown that impulsivity is related to ecstasy use. smith and jones (2003) showed people who had never consumed ecstasy had lower rash impulsivity than people who consume ecstasy regularly (at least once per month). jones and smith (2005) also found that people who had consumed ecstasy monthly in key="" future="" directions?="" conclusions="" 26/03/2019="" 22="" what="" should="" i="" discuss?="" were="" things="" exactly="" as="" expected?="" e.g.="" 1)="" did="" different="" message="" frames="" influence="" future="" alcohol="" drinking="" intentions?="" were="" any="" particular="" message="" frames="" more="" effective?="" why="" or="" why="" not?="" e.g.="" 2)="" did="" age,="" gender="" and="" non-drinking="" motives="" predict="" intentions?="" e.g.="" 3)="" did="" we="" replicate="" previous="" findings?="" how?="" did="" we="" extend="" previous="" findings?="" how,="" and="" why="" was="" this="" important?="" why="" might="" you="" have="" gotten="" the="" findings="" you="" did?="" what="" did="" these="" findings="" add="" to="" the="" literature?="" how="" does="" this="" address="" your="" rationale="" (big="" picture)?="" 26/03/2019="" 23="" discussion="" where="" to="" look="" (in="" order="" of="" priority)?="" lab="" report="" instructions="" (discussion)="" example="" lab="" report="" marking="" rubric="" (to="" see="" what="" your="" marker="" will="" be="" looking="" for)="" 26/03/2019="" 24="" proof="" reading="" if="" you="" can="" organise="" it,="" give="" yourself="" a="" few="" days="" break="" after="" writing.="" when="" reading,="" if="" a="" point="" doesn’t="" contribute="" to="" your="" argument,="" cull="" it.="" 26/03/2019="" 25="" word="" count="" 2000="" words="" (10%="" leeway)="" what="" is="" excluded="" from="" the="" word="" count?="" ◦="" abstract="" ◦="" title="" page="" ◦="" reference="" list="" (not="" in="" line="" citations)="" 26/03/2019="" 26="" general="" guidance="" you’re="" writing="" a="" journal="" article,="" so="" think="" about="" how="" those="" are="" constructed.="" don’t="" get="" bogged="" down="" too="" much="" in="" the="" previous="" studies,="" they="" aren’t="" necessarily="" doing="" the="" same="" thing.="" ◦="" aims,="" measures,="" sample,="" etc.="" do="" not="" quote="" write="" in="" your="" own="" (professional)="" voice="" 26/03/2019="" 27="" more="" guidance="" synthesise!="" several="" studies="" have="" shown="" that="" impulsivity="" is="" related="" to="" ecstasy="" use.="" smith="" and="" jones="" (2003)="" showed="" people="" who="" had="" never="" consumed="" ecstasy="" had="" lower="" rash="" impulsivity="" than="" people="" who="" consume="" ecstasy="" regularly="" (at="" least="" once="" per="" month).="" jones="" and="" smith="" (2005)="" also="" found="" that="" people="" who="" had="" consumed="" ecstasy="" monthly="">- key future directions? conclusions 26/03/2019 22 what should i discuss? were things exactly as expected? e.g. 1) did different message frames influence future alcohol drinking intentions? were any particular message frames more effective? why or why not? e.g. 2) did age, gender and non-drinking motives predict intentions? e.g. 3) did we replicate previous findings? how? did we extend previous findings? how, and why was this important? why might you have gotten the findings you did? what did these findings add to the literature? how does this address your rationale (big picture)? 26/03/2019 23 discussion where to look (in order of priority)? lab report instructions (discussion) example lab report marking rubric (to see what your marker will be looking for) 26/03/2019 24 proof reading if you can organise it, give yourself a few days break after writing. when reading, if a point doesn’t contribute to your argument, cull it. 26/03/2019 25 word count 2000 words (10% leeway) what is excluded from the word count? ◦ abstract ◦ title page ◦ reference list (not in line citations) 26/03/2019 26 general guidance you’re writing a journal article, so think about how those are constructed. don’t get bogged down too much in the previous studies, they aren’t necessarily doing the same thing. ◦ aims, measures, sample, etc. do not quote write in your own (professional) voice 26/03/2019 27 more guidance synthesise! several studies have shown that impulsivity is related to ecstasy use. smith and jones (2003) showed people who had never consumed ecstasy had lower rash impulsivity than people who consume ecstasy regularly (at least once per month). jones and smith (2005) also found that people who had consumed ecstasy monthly in>