Revise PSY Research Methods Assignment

timer Asked: Nov 17th, 2016

Question description

I NEED HELP!!! I have no idea how to formulate this methods assignment for my class. Please review the document I turned in and my professor comments on the attached Original Assignment below.

For this milestone, you will create a Methods section as the next piece of your study. Within your Methods section, include sections for the Purpose Statement, Participants, Materials and Procedures, Variables, and Data Analysis Plan. Use the Module Three Overview as a guide for additional explanation on each of these sections.

1. Make the changes requested by the professor to the document

2. Please add pertinent information to this assignment

3. Please review topic and SPSS data attached below to incorporate into the assignment.

4. Please follow the assignment instructions closely.

5,. Please no copied content.

ICPSR 34274 National Survey of Eyewitness Identification Procedure in Law Enforcement Agencies, 1994-2012 Description Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 - ICPSR 34274 - Bibliographic Description ICPSR Study No.: Title: Principal Investigator(s): 34274 National Survey of Eyewitness Identification Procedure in Law Enforcement Agencies, 1994-2012 Gerard Murphy, Police Executive Research Forum Molly Griswold, Police Executive Research Forum Bruce Kubu, Police Executive Research Forum Daniel Woods, Police Executive Research Forum Colleen Berryessa, Police Executive Research Forum Kevin Greene, Police Executive Research Forum Jacob Berman, Police Executive Research Forum Funding Agency: Grant Number: Bibliographic Citation: United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice 2010-IJ-CX-0032 Murphy, Gerard, Molly Griswold, Bruce Kubu, Daniel Woods, Colleen Berryessa, Kevin Greene, and Jacob Berman. National Survey of Eyewitness Identification Procedure in Law Enforcement Agencies, 1994-2012. ICPSR34274-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research[distributor], 2014-03-07. Scope of Study Summary: The data results from a study conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) designed to obtain the first nationwide assessment of the state of the criminal justice field regarding eyewitness identification procedures used by law enforcement agencies. PERF designed and conducted a survey of 619 police departments across the United States. The study focused on the departments training and policy when conducting eyewitness identification; particularly the study examined the use of "blind" administrators and the use of simultaneous or sequential presentation to the witness. The number of lineup members, witness instructions, police training, number of witness viewings and - ii - - ICPSR 34274 recording of the witness statements were also examined. A pilot test of the survey was conducted prior to the study. Subject Term(s): Smallest Geographic Unit: Geographic Coverage: case processing, evaluation, evidence, eyewitness memory, police departments, policy analysis, suspect identification, testimony, training, witnesses region United States Time Period: • 1994 - 2012 Date(s) of Collection: • 2010 - 2012 Unit of Observation: Universe: Data Type: Data Collection Notes: law enforcement agency All functioning United States police agencies listed within the National Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies (NDLEA) database in 2011, that perform full service police duties (N=15,685). survey data The study associated with the data (Murphy, Donaldson, Kubu, Woods, Berryessa, Greene, and Berman, 2012; NIJ 2010-IJ-CX-0032) discusses qualitative data collected from 30 interviews via telephone as a supplement to the survey. This data will not be released by ICPSR at this time. Methodology Purpose of the Study: The purpose of the study was to create the first nationwide assessment of the criminal justice system regarding eyewitness identification procedures used by law enforcement agencies including through conducting a national survey of a random stratified sample of law enforcement agencies in the United States regarding their eyewitness identification policies, training, and police procedures. Study Design: The Eyewitness Identification Survey was developed in consultation with a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) comprised of academic researchers and law enforcement experts. The survey was fielded in order to evaluate the current eyewitness identification policies and practices in law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. A focus group of the eight TAG members examined the major issues to be included in the survey and to identify questions that would effectively evaluate current - iii - - ICPSR 34274 practices in the field. The draft of the Eyewitness Identification Survey was sent to representatives from nine law enforcement agencies in June and July of 2011. Agencies were chosen based on their past experiences with and expertise regarding eyewitness identification procedures and policy development. These pilot testers were asked to complete the survey and make margin notes concerning questions about the form and content. Each person was then contacted via telephone to discuss the survey. The final version of the survey was made available to respondents online as well as in hard copy. The National Eyewitness Identification Survey was distributed to a random stratified sample of law enforcement agencies throughout the United States (n=1,377). Hard copies of the survey were mailed to agencies on three separate occasions between August 17 and October 25, 2011. Reminder letters were sent to non-responding agencies in five separate waves between October 18, 2011 and January 11, 2012. Reminder telephone calls were placed to a number of non-respondent agencies between January 17 and January 24, 2012. A total of 619 completed surveys were returned. When the surveys were returned they were recorded and reviewed for completion. Surveys with information that was considered unclear, inconsistent, or missing were flagged. PERF staff members contacted respondents for all flagged surveys for clarification or missing response. Staff members attempted to contact respondents of missing data through mid January 2012. Sample: The study contracted with Tailored Statistical Solutions, LCC (TS²) to draw a nationally representative sample of law enforcement agencies from the National Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies (NDLEA) database. In addition to the name and address of the current chief executive, NDLEA information included the population served by the law enforcement agency, the type of law enforcement agency, the number of officers in the agency, and the region (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West) in which the agency is located. The data base was cleaned to omit agencies that are defunct or do not perform full service police duties. After cleaning the database contained information on 15,685 law enforcement agencies. The law enforcement agencies in the database were stratified by region, type, and size based on the number of sworn officers reducing the sample to 1,401 agencies. Of those, 24 agencies reported not using any eyewitness identification procedure and were not sent the survey. Of the 1,377 agencies sent the survey, 619 were completed. - iv - - ICPSR 34274 Weight: Sources of Information: Mode of Data Collection: Each of the agencies selected for the sample was weighted (using variable FINALWTALL "WEIGHT") in order to account for population size. National Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies (NDLEA) record abstracts mail questionnaire web-based survey Description of Variables: The 515 variables contained in the study include: 1) Agency information. 2) Current policies including: instructions given to eyewitness pre-lineup, lineup procedure, lineup content, lineup presentation method, and behavioral influence of the lineup administrator. Lineup procedures include: show up, photographic lineup, live lineup, composite, and mugshot search. 3) Historical agency experiences. Response Rates: Of the 1,377 agencies sent the survey, 619 completed the survey resulting in a response rate of 45 percent. Presence of Common Scales: none Extent of Processing: Standardized missing values. Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes. Access and Availability Note: Restrictions: A list of the data formats available for this study can be found in the summary of holdings. Detailed file-level information (such as record length, case count, and variable count) is listed in the file manifest. A downloadable version of data for this study is available however, certain identifying information in the downloadable version may have been masked or edited to protect respondent privacy. Additional data not included in the downloadable version are available in a restricted version of this data collection. For more information about the differences -v- - ICPSR 34274 between the downloadable data and the restricted data, please refer to the codebook notes section of the codebook. Users interested in obtaining restricted data must complete and sign a Restricted Data Use Agreement, describe the research project and data protection plan, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research. Original ICPSR Release: Dataset(s): 2014-03-07 • DS1: Eyewitness Identification Procedure Data Publications Final Reports and Other Publication Resources: A list of publications related to, or based on, this data collection can be accessed from the study's download page on the NACJD Web site or through the ICPSR Bibliography of Data-Related Literature at The list of citations includes links to abstracts and publications in Portable Document Format (PDF) files or text files when available. Final reports and other publications describing research conducted on a variety of criminal justice topics are available from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). NCJRS was established in 1972 by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, to provide research findings to criminal justice professionals and researchers. NCJRS operates specialized clearinghouses that are staffed by information specialists who supply a range of reference, referral, and distribution services. Publications can be obtained from NCJRS at NIJ/NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, MD, 20849-6000, 800-851-3420 or 301-519-5500. TTY Service for the Hearing Impaired is 877-712-9279 (toll-free) or 301-947-8374 (local). The URL for the NCJRS Web site is: NIJ Data Resources Program About the DRP: The National Institute of Justice Data Resources Program (DRP) makes datasets from NIJ-funded research and evaluation projects available to the research community and sponsors research and training activities devoted to secondary data analysis. Datasets are archived by the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) at the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) at the University of Michigan. The NACJD maintains a World Wide Web site with instructions for transferring files and sending messages. Criminal justice data funded by the Department of Justice are available via the Internet at this site at no charge to the user. NACJD may be contacted at NACJD/ICPSR, P.O. - vi - - ICPSR 34274 Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI, 48106-1248, 800-999-0960. The URL for the NACJD Web site is: - vii -
Running head: METHODS 1 Methods Pretty Polite Research Methods in PSY November 12, 2016 METHODS 2 (Your Purpose Statement section (which is denoted in the grading rubric for this assignment) appears to be missing.) Methods A mixed method will be employed in this research design. In this method, a quantitative study will be carried out on different eyewitnesses to determine how the identification process went when they had not been helped by an investigative officer who is involved with that particular case during the process. Another quantitative study will be carried out to determine just how many of the eyewitnesses were not sure of their testimony due to memory loss for whatever reason. Finally, a qualitative study will be carried out to determine the efficiency of current eyewitness identification procedures.(You appear to be describing the characteristics of a hypothetical study. However, you should simply describe (and cite accordingly) the manner in which the original study representing the dataset that you are leveraging was conducted. For example, what are the characteristics of the population of interest? What sampling procedure was used? How many participants took part in the study? The same applies to the Materials and Procedures section. Again, you are NOT to design a hypothetical study. The methods section should entail a summary of the characteristics of the study whose dataset you are leveraging. This is addressed in the final project grading rubric (see image below). However, the data analysis section should explicitly describe the exact manner in which you will analyze the data so as to answer your research question. Please revise this assignment and resubmit it.) METHODS 3 In the first study, there will be a group of witnesses who will have had the help of an investigative officer as they were making the identification. In this study, the investigative officer will have prior knowledge of the suspect. In the same study, there will be another group of eyewitnesses who will not be assisted by an officer who has prior knowledge of the suspect in question. The second study will have two sets of eyewitnesses. One set will be sure about their memory while the other will not be sure about the status of their memory. Both groups will be subjected under the same witness identification process with similar identification procedures. Finally, the third study will involve different eyewitnesses and investigation officers among other stakeholders. Purpose Statement (This should appear as the first section in this document.) As noted earlier on, the purpose of this study is to determine how the eyewitness identification procedure impacts the authenticity and eligibility of an eyewitness’ testimony. To best achieve this, both qualitative and quantitative methods will be applied in a mixed method. The qualitative method will be used to check the current eyewitness identification procedures effectiveness. On the other hand, the quantitative methodology will be carried out to determine how effective the eyewitness identification process was when a case officer assisted them with the identification process and when they were not involved in the same process. This latter METHODS 4 method will also be used to check the impact of memory loss on the identification process and how the identification procedures mitigated the situation. The variables in this case study will be the eyewitnesses and memory status as the dependent variable and the independent variables will be the eyewitness identification procedures, the criminal and case officer. Participants The participants in this case study will include the case officers, eyewitnesses, supposed criminal, other case officer who will not have identified the ‘criminal’ before the identification stage. Each participant will play a major role in the study. Materials and Procedures The eyewitnesses were identified form a crowd using certain factors of elimination. There were some who were picked because they had issue with their memory while the rest were expected to have good memory. Those that had issue with their memory, had to have experienced a traumatic even in the past which led to the loss of memory. However, other witnesses who had lost their memory due to other causes were also allowed to participate. It was paramount to have both parties in the study. There were other persons who would assist with the identification process and others to act as the case officers who knew the suspected person. The sample selected for this study was about 1000 people. The different agencies that were selected were accounted for the population size. The survey was sent to different law enforcement agencies which had been selected randomly. Of these agencies, there was a number that did not have eyewitness identification procedures. As such, they could not participate in the METHODS 5 study. There are some respondents who were interviewed. Some were interviewed via telephone. These interviews came in handy in the identification of any extra procedures that were employed during the eyewitness identification. Variables There were different variables in the study. The study included four main categories of variables. These were the system variables which included factors which were deemed to have an effect in the eyewitness identification. These included the method used to present the lineup, the officer guiding them as they made the identification, the persons in the lineup, as well as the instructions given to the eyewitnesses when they are making the identification. Data Analysis Plan The data collected in the study was analyzed after the weights were standardized to have a good representation of the population. Each survey that was taken was recorded and then reviewed. The review was focused on determining whether the data collected was consistent. Any inconsistent and unclear data was flagged. The data was then taken through a rigorous process to clean it through SPSS. The data was then analyzed to determine the results of the collected data.

Tutor Answer

(Top Tutor) Studypool Tutor
School: UT Austin
Studypool has helped 1,244,100 students
flag Report DMCA
Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors