Complete PSY Research Methods Assignment

Anonymous
timer Asked: Nov 20th, 2016

Question description

Below you will find my previous weeks completed assignments to give you a better idea on how to complete this assignment. Please also use the SPSS data in the pdf below.

4-2 Short Paper: Ethical Considerations

Based on the Introduction (Milestone One) that you already created, perform an ethical review that could be used to collect data from participants. As a guide for your review, use the questions in Table 3.1: Sample Questions for Ethics Review (page 47 of Beginning Behavioral Research: A Conceptual Primer, attached below). Base this review on a hypothetical methodology that could be used to collect the type of data in your selected data set.

Construct this paper using these headings, which align with the Module Four Short Paper Rubric elements:

  • Investigators (one paragraph, why should these people be the researchers)
  • Nature of Study (one or two paragraphs; describe the proposed study)
  • Research Participants (one paragraph; who might the participants be?)
  • Confidentiality (one paragraph; how will data be secured?)
  • Debriefing (one paragraph; how will participants be debriefed?)


Note: At their discretion, instructors may perform an originality check on submissions using Turnitin.

Complete PSY Research Methods Assignment
page_47.jpg
Running Head: METHODS 1 Methods Pretty Polite Research Methods in PSY November 17, 2016 Running Head: METHODS 2 Purpose Statement The primary 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 method will also be used to check the impact of memory loss on the identification process and how the identification procedures mitigated the situation. 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. The Police Executive Research Forum carried out a study in efforts to assess the state of eyewitnesses in the criminal justice system. They wanted to obtain more data on the use of eyewitness identification procedures that are being used by law enforcement agencies. PERF studied six hundred and nineteen different police departments all across the country. They primarily focused their study on the procedures and training of the departments when using eyewitness identification methods. They qualitatively collected data via interviews, they conducted 30 of them over the phone instead of in person like the rest. These surveys were conducted by both law enforcement officials and academic researchers together. They had a Running Head: METHODS 3 focus group composed of eight members that closely laid out the core issues of the study. The agencies that they chose to study in their research were based on both past experience and their own expertise regarding eyewitness identification. The chosen departments were sent the survey and asked to complete and return it back to them. They also asked them to add notes on the margin of the survey including any questions they had about the survey. Once the surveys were collected and reviewed, PERF contacted each participant over the phone to discuss the survey. 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. 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. Running Head: METHODS 4 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 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 Running Head: METHODS 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. 5
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 www.icpsr.umich.edu - 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. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34274.v1 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 http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/ICPSR/citations/index.html. 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: http://www.ncjrs.gov/ 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: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/ - vii -
Running head: NATIONAL SURVEY 1 National Survey of Eyewitness Identification Procedure in Law Enforcement Agencies Pretty Polite Research Methods in PSY November 6, 2016 NATIONAL SURVEY 2 National Survey of Eyewitness Identification Procedure in Law Enforcement Agencies Problem Statement The criminal justice department has a fundamental legal duty to fulfill to the community. In some cases, is required to handle cases where there are eye witnesses. Notably, eye witnesses are very important persons of interest in a legal case. Their testimony allows the presiding judge as well as the jury to reach relevant and fair conclusions. As such, it is important that the legal fraternity handles these eye witnesses with much care. As they present their testimonies, their testimonies can be marred since they are mortal. Notably, the eye witnesses can develop an issue with their eyesight or even be uncertain about their testimony. These are some of the problems that might affect the evidence provided by the witness. According to Innocence Project (2013), there have been a significant number of cases where the guilty persons were exonerated after forensic DNA was used to process the evidence. Such exonerations took place because the evidence from the eyewitness could not tarry with what the forensic science detailed. In the same context, there have been questions on just how reliable human memory is when it comes to remembering details. These questions raise issues that might dent evidence provided by an eyewitness. As such, this research would help create solutions that will help mitigate any problem that would mar an eye witness’ credibility as they make the identification. NATIONAL SURVEY 3 Literature Review Reliance on eyewitnesses has its cons and pros. One major con is the fact that often, eye witnesses will make a mistake (Wells & Loftus, 2003). Although one might be confident with what their memory holds, it is a fact that people will interpret things differently. Another issue with memory is the fact that it can be influenced by external factors. As a result, whatever was in the memory can fade away with time. Their memory can also be affected by traumatic events that might take place in their life. Such events like crime or even an accident can have traumatic effects which might confuse the witness (Wells et al., 2000). Social science has grown in the near past to include researches that help shed light on practices in law enforcement which might impact negatively on the credibility of an eyewitness’ identification. Scientific evidence collected from research studies carried out in controlled environments is now available. These studies help to identify possible problems or flaws when an eye witness identifies a suspect. The eyewitness’ testimony is now checked against the evidence acquired through forensic DNA science. As noted herein, there have been a significant number of exonerations after eyewitness evidence is contradicted by DNA testing results (Wells et al., 1998). More research has been conducted in the field of eyewitness identification in the context of whether they should identify photographs or live persons. Information gathered from such research studies helped developed some of the recommendations as well as guidelines detailed by the Department of Justice (NIJ Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence, 1999). In the same context, it has remained debatable whether blind administration procedures should be employed in lineups. Blind administration details that the administrators should not be aware of NATIONAL SURVEY 4 the suspect in the lineup. Controlled experiments in this area have indicated that when the blind procedures are employed, the chances of an administrator influencing the results are reduced to a great extent (Haw & Fisher, 2004). Sadly, no standards have been set to regulate the eyewitness identification procedures at a national level. Notably, different agencies have already made changes to the procedures employed in the witness identification process. This step was motivated by the significant increase in the number of people that were exonerated due to conflicting evidence gathered through DNA tests (NIJ Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence, 1999). The NIJ Guide that was developed in 1999 was used by some agencies to curve out their procedures. Notably, the guide was just a source of recommendations and guidance. Other agencies relied on legislation by their local state legislators. As a result, there are no regulations that have standardized at a national level. As more and more research is conducted on the subject, it is very likely that more and more agencies will revise their witness identification policies. This will add to the variety of policies that are used all over the nation. As such, it shows how much there is a need to carry out controlled research whose will help develop a national policy on witness identification which will harmonize the legal fraternity’s procedures nationwide. Research Question According to experience, which eyewitness identification policies and practices help to increase the credibility of the eyewitness when identifying a suspect? NATIONAL SURVEY Hypothesis The dependent variable can be influenced by the independent variable depending on the credibility of the data. 5 NATIONAL SURVEY 6 References Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement. (1999). Written by the NIJ Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence for the National Institute of Justice of the Department of Justice. Retrieved Nov 4, 2016. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/178240.pdf. Facts on Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations. The Innocence Project. Retrieved on January 25, 2013. Retrieved at http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations. php. Wells, G.L., Loftus, E.F. (2003). Eyewitness memory for people and events. Handbook of Psychology, 3: 149-160. Wells, G.L., Malpass, R.S., Lindsay, R.C.L., Fisher, R.P., Turtle, J. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness. American Psychologist, 55(6): 581-598. Wells, G.L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R.S., Fulero, S.M., Brimacombe, C.A.E. (1998) “Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Line Ups and Photospreads.” Law and Human Behavior 22: 603 – 647.

Tutor Answer

(Top Tutor) Studypool Tutor
School: University of Maryland
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