FSHD 507B
Research Methods In Family Studies and Human Development
Spring 2008
INSTRUCTOR:
OFFICE HOURS:
Bruce J. Ellis, Ph.D.
Office: FCS 210c
Phone: (520) 626-5703
Email: bjellis@email.arizona.edu
Tuesdays 1:15-3 (and by appointment).
CLASS TIME AND LOCATION: Fridays, 9:00 – 11:50, FCS 219
Course Format and Goals
This class is based on a seminar-discussion format. My desire for this course is to provide an
environment in which all students feel free and safe to thoughtfully add to the class discussion in
their own way. It is my goal that we will listen to and build upon each other's thoughts and ideas
as we work together to learn more about conducting social science research with children, youth,
couples, and families.
Central to the course will be visits to class by local experts on the methods and methodological
issues that we are studying. These visits will enble us to benefit directly from the experiences
and knowledge of a diversity of scientists. The visiting experts will receive a compilation of
your questions-critiques-comments prior to their visit.
This course focuses on selected methodological topics. We will undertake a survey of various
topics (e.g., handling multiple informants, daily diary methods, use of archival data), rather than
engaging in extended investigations of any given topic. My hope is that your participation in this
course will:
1. Provide you with a foundation for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each
of the selected methods or methodological issues;
2. Improve your ability to design and execute a program of research;
3. Increase your knowledge about practical issues related to conducting research in family
studies and human development;
4. Help you think about the role of research design in data analysis and interpretation;
5. Increase your ability to evaluate the methods you encounter in journal articles;
6. Increase your awareness of the implications of choosing to study human behavior in a particular
way.
Course readings
A set of readings, consisting of recent book chapters and journal articles (see attached reading
list), is available through the main library’s Electronic Reserve System (ERes) at
http://eres.library.arizona.edu/eres/coursepass.aspx?cid=7112. To access the ERes coursepage
and reserve readings, type in the password ‘familymethod’ (all lowercase), then click on the
“Accept” button.
Weekly discussion papers
To facilitate class discussion, students will be responsible for contributing two discussion
questions, which together should be approximately 600 words (1 single-spaced page), for each
class. Questions should be written carefully, with attention paid to APA style and grammar. At
least one of the two questions should be integrative, that is, it must focus on issues raised across
all the readings rather than on a sole article. Please identify which question is integrative by
prefacing the word “integrative” in front of your question. The purpose of the discussion
questions are to help stimulate you to think more deeply about given methods or methodological
issues and to come to class prepared to discuss them.
The questions will be compiled for class discussion. Please email me your questions before
noon on Wednesday. Without prior approval, 10% of the grade will be deducted for each hour
the questions are late. Although there are 13 substantive weeks of class, only your 12 best
weekly discussion papers will count toward your grade (i.e., your lowest grade will be dropped;
or, if you miss an assignment, that one will be dropped). Thus, you have one degree of freedom
on your weekly discussion papers.
The weekly discussion papers will be graded on a 100 point scale. Criteria for grading the
discussion papers are:
a) How important are the methodological issues being addressed? How central are they
to theory and research versus minor points?
b) Has the importance of your questions been communicated?
c) Do the questions do more than just request information or clarification. This is, do
the questions raise issues, explore implications, challenge assumptions, or juxtapose
ideas.
d) How well developed are the bases for your questions? Some background underlying
each question is required so that the question does not “come out of nowhere.” In
other words, from what parts of the readings did you base your question?
e) Do the questions arise from the particular reading for the week or could they have
been asked generally, without ever having done the readings at all. In other words, it
is important to tie the questions directly to the readings for the week?
f) How provocative are the questions? It is not enough to ask “what other research has
been done in this area?” Instead, it is important to take the idea from the readings and
build on it, connecting it to other readings we have read, your area of interest, or both.
Discussion leadership:
Each student will co-lead three days of discussion. When it is your week to be a discussion coleader, I will forward you all of the students’ “weekly discussion papers.” Your job will be (a) to
organize/compile the students’ discussion questions into a summative discussion document; (b)
email the compilation to me, to the other students in the class, and to the local expert who will be
visiting our class that week (by 5pm on Thursday); and (c) drawing on these questions, help
guide the class discussion that day (e.g., make sure that the main issues that were raised by
students get brought up during class).
Grading
Weekly discussion papers (12 [6.66% each]) Due each week:
Participation/attendence through semester (including discussion leadership):
75%
25%
Class Schedule
WEEK
READING
Jan. 18
-----------------------------------------
Jan. 25
Moffitt, T.E. (2005). The new look of behavioral genetics in
developmental psychopathology: Gene-environment interplay in
antisocial behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 533-554. [Read
this one first.]
Rutter, M. (2005). Environmentally mediated risks for
psychopathology: Research strategies and findings. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44, 3-18.
TOPIC
Introduction
The problem
of genetic confounds and
what to do
about it.
Tither, J.M., & Ellis, B.J. (under review). Impact of fathers on
daughters’ age at menarche: A genetically- and environmentallycontrolled sibling study. Revision submitted to Developmental
Psychology.
Feb. 1
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1992). A
developmental and clinical model for the prevention of conduct
disorders: The Fast Track Program. Development and
Psychopathology, 4, 509-527.
The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2002). The
implementation of the Fast Track program: An example of a largescale prevention science efficacy trial. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 30, 1–17.
Demonstrating
causation: The
Fast Track
preventiveintervention
program
Foster, E.M., Jones, D., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research
Group (2006). Can a costly intervention be cost-effective. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 63, 1284-1291.
Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Conduct Problems
Prevention Research Group (2007). Fast track randomized
controlled trial to prevent externalizing psychiatric disorders:
Findings from grades 3 to 9. Journal of the American Academy of
Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 1250-1262.
Feb. 8
No Class: SPSP Conference
------------------
Feb.
15
Hofferth, S. L. (2005). Secondary data analysis in family research.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 891-907.
Russell, S.T. & Matthews, E. (in press). Using Archival Data to Study
Adolescence and Adolescent Development. In Trzeniwski, K.,
Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (Eds.), Obtaining and Analyzing
Archival Data: Methods and Illustrations. APA Books
Feb.
22
Feb.
29
Stephen
Russell:
Secondary data
analysis
(Gabe, Eva)
Bolger, N., Davis, A.,& Rafeli, E. (2003). Diary methods:
Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 579616.
Sue Silverberg
Koerner: Daily
diary methods
Laurenceau, J. P. & Bolger, N. (2005). Using diary methods to
study marital and family processes. Journal of Family Psychology,
19, 86-97.
(Kali, Liz)
Levenson, R.W., & Gottman, J.M. (1983). Marital Interaction:
Physiological linkage and affective exchange. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 45, 587-597
Mendes, W.B. et al. (2002). Challenge and Threat During Social
Interactions With White and Black Men. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 939-952.
Emily Butler:
Psychophysiol
ogy in
relationship
research
(Liz, Eva)
Lisa M. Diamond, L.M. et al. (2006). Physiological evidence for
repressive coping among avoidantly attached adults. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 205–229.
Ellis, B.J., & Boyce, W.T. (in press). Biological sensitivity to
context. Current Directions in Psychological Science.
Mar. 4
(Tues.,
5:157:30)
Krysik, J., & LeCroy, C.W. (2007). The evaluation of Healthy
Families Arizona: A multi-site home visitation program. Journal of
Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 34, 109 – 127.
Craig Lecroy:
Program
evaluation
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=8
(Tom, Russ)
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=6&n=3
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/content/eval/issue34/sp
ring2007.pdf
Mar.
14
Rohrbaugh, M., Shoham, V. et al. (2004). Beyond the self in selfefficacy: Spouse confidnece predicts patients survival following
heart failure. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 184-193.
Shoham, V, Butler, E.A., Trost, S.E., & Rohrbaugh (2007). Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 848-853.
Rohrbaugh, M, Mehl, M.R., Shoam, V., & Reiley, E.S. (submitted).
Prognostic Significance of Spouse "We-Talk" in Couples Coping
Michael
Rohrbaugh:
behavioral
processes and
interventions
with couples
with Heart Failure
(Robert, Liz)
Shoam, V., Rohrbaugh, M., Trost, S.E., & Muramoto, M. (2006). A
family consultation intervention for health compromised smokers.
Journal of Substance Abuse, 31, 395-402.
Mar.
21
Mar.
28
No Class: Spring Break
------------------
Breakwell, G. M. (1995). Interviewing. In G. M. Breakwell, S. Hammond, &
C. Fife-Schaw (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (pp. 230-242).
London: Sage.
Melissa
Curran:
Interviewing
Kadushin, A. (1997). The interview process: Development and termination.
In A. Kadushin, & G. Kadushin (Eds.), The social work interview: A guide for
human service professionals (read pp. 187-205). New York: Columbia
University Press.
(Kali)
Friesen, M.D., & Ellis, B.J. (in press). Convergent validation of an
interview-based personality assessment: A laboratory project.
Teaching of Psychology.
Apr. 4
Betancourt, H., & Lopez, S. R. (1993). The study of culture,
ethnicity, and race in American Psychology. American
Psychologist, 48, 629-637.
Fisher, C. B., Hoagwood, K., Boyce, C., Duster, T, Frank, D. A.,
Grisso, T., Levine, R. J., Macklin, R., Spencer, M. B., Takanishi, R.,
Trimble, J. E., & Zayas, L. H. (2002). Research ethics for mental
health science involving ethnic minority children and youths.
American Psychologist, 57, 1024-1040.
Angela Taylor:
Ethnicity and
Culture
(Tom,
Christine)
Phinney, J. (1998). Research paradigms for studying ethnic
minority families within and across groups: In V. McLoyd & L.
Steinberg (Eds.), Studying minority adolescents: Conceptual,
methodological, and theoretical issues (pp. 89-109). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Apr.
11
Borden, L., & Serido, J. (in press). From program participant to
engaged citizen: A developmental journey. Journal of Community
Psychology.
Lynne Borden:
Applied
Research
Obradovic, J. & Masten, A.S. (2007). Developmental antecedents of
young adult civic engagement. Applied Developmental Science, 11,
2-19.
(Christine,
Russ)
Theokas, C., & Lerner, R.M. (2006). Observed ecological assets in
families, schools, and neighborhoods. Applied Developmental
Science, 10, 61-74.
Apr.
Abramovitch, R., Freedman, J. L., Thoden, K., & Nikolich, C.
Wendy
18
(1991). Children's capacity to consent to participation in
psychological research: Empirical findings. Child Development, 62,
1100-1109.
Gamble: Doing
Research with
Children
Cree, V. E., Kay, H., & Tisdall, K. (2002). Research with children:
Sharing the dilemmas. Child and Family Social Work, 7, 47-56.
Leslie, Debbie
Greig, A., & Taylor, J. (1999), Doing research with children.
London: Sage. Chapter 7. Special techniques for doing research
with children
Apr.
25
Cooper, H. M., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). Research synthesis as a
scientific enterprise. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The
handbook of research synthesis (pp. 3-14). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Noel Card:
Meta-analysis
Leslie, Debbie
Chapter 2 of: Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical
meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
May 2
Treutler, C. M., & Epkins, C. C. (2003). Are discrepancies among
child, mother, and father reports on children’s behavior related to
parents’ psychological symptoms and aspects of parent-child
relationships? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 13-27.
Matthias Mehl:
Multiple
informants
Kraemer, H.C., Measelle, J.R., Ablow, J.C., Essex, M.J., Boyce,
W.T., & Kupfer, D.J. (2003). A new approach to integrating data
from multiple informants in psychiatric assessment and research:
Mixing and matching contexts and perspectives. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 160 , 1566-1577.
Gabe, Robert
Hofstee, W. K. B. (1994). Who should own the definition of
personality? European Journal of Personality, 8, 149-162.
Park, I.J.K., Garber, J., Ciesla, J.A., & Ellis, B.J. (in press).
Convergence among multiple methods of measuring the family
environment: Relation to depression in mothers and their children.
Journal of Family Psychology.
Epkins, C. C., & Dedmon, A. M. M. (1999). An initial look at
sibling reports on children’s behavior: Comparisons with children’s
self-reports and relations with siblings’ self-reports and sibling
relationships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 371-381.