Imagine you are a teacher charged with the responsibility of supervising elementary students playing during recess. One day, you are visibly present to the students, carefully navigating the playground to oversee behaviors of play; you do not notice any behaviors where you might need to intervene (such as fights, bullying, unfair play, etc.). The next day, you follow the same pattern and notice no disruptive behaviors. However, on the third day, you walk around less and find you must redirect some bullying instances. The following day, you go back to your regular pattern, and there are no incidences. How might you assess the situation? Does consistently walking around, being present throughout the playground, reduce the likelihood of disruptive behavior? These types of questions and scenarios are typical areas studied for a within-subjects experimental method (Privitera, 2017). Specifically, researchers examine the same group participants and observe over time with the intent to rule-out time-related factors, which may help reveal what differences may be due to manipulation (Privitera, 2017).
The text reveals an example of music and its possible connection to how participants feel during running (Privitera, 2017), looking at how to control for what may be manipulating runners to feel good one day and not on another (i.e., music or possibly other factors, such as fatigue). This week, you will evaluate the processes of the within-subjects experimental method. These processes involve criteria for design, considerations for development such as time-related factors, counterbalancing, controlling for threats against validity, selecting and comparing related samples, and application of statistical tests in support for datasets (Privitera, 2017).
Sample Solution