Ecological-Community Psychology
Psychology 870
Fall 2012
Class Time and Location
Tuesday
12:40-3:30 p.m.
65 Psychology Building
Instructor
Robin L. Miller, Ph.D.
Office 134A Psychology Building
Phone: 432-3267
Office hours: by appointment
Course Objective: The purpose of this course is to provide students with an overview of
experimental and quasi-experimental research methods as these are used in
community psychology. The course will concentrate on research design in an applied,
action-oriented context.
Required Text: Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2009). Approaches to social research,
(5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Other Readings: Other readings are listed in the course outline. These readings apply
basic concepts to research in community psychology. These are intended to provide
you with a broad understanding of core methodological concepts and illustrate how
these are applied in community research. You are expected to read assigned articles for
each topic prior to class.
Readings are available in PDF format on Angel, unless otherwise noted. However, it is
preferable that you download PDFs of these readings via the MSU library’s
website of electronic resources. I ask that you do so for two reasons. First, using the
library in this way helps demonstrate the need to maintain electronic subscriptions to
journals that we rely on by providing them with accurate usage data. Second, download
statistics are kept by journals and authors to indicate that their work is being used.
Healthy download numbers help journals demonstrate their value and add to the ways
in which authors can show their work has an impact.
Course Requirements: There will be several written assignments throughout the
semester. To prepare to complete your assignments, you should draw on the required
readings. All assignments will be graded. All written assignments must be typed,
double-spaced, and in American Psychological Association style (see the Publication
Manual of the American Psychological Association). Your ability to write clearly and in a
grammatically correct manner will count toward your grade on each assignment.
2/8/2016
1
Assignment 1 - Formulating research questions and hypotheses. (40 Points)
In this paper, you will develop the research questions and hypotheses that might guide
the design of a quantitative study. Select a social problem (e.g., teenage pregnancy,
homelessness, delinquency, violence, obesity) or other phenomenon (e.g.,
empowerment, social support, prevention, oppression, sense of community) in which
you are interested. Develop a 4 to 5-page double-spaced paper that addresses the
following:
a) Concisely define your problem or construct.
b) Provide two distinct and specific research questions focused on the problem or
construct that can be addressed empirically.
c) Briefly justify the importance of these two questions. Why it is important that
these questions be addressed in research? What value would the answer to
these questions add to the literature in this area?
d) Develop two unique hypotheses that correspond to each research question (4
hypotheses in all). Provide a rationale for each of the hypotheses and link that
rationale back to the research question.
e) Define each of the variables that are embedded in your hypotheses and how you
would operationalize each. How will each variable be measured? Discuss the
limitations and tradeoffs associated with your choice of how to operationalize
each variable.
f) Graph the specific relationships that you expect to find as these are stated in
your hypotheses. In other words, what would the relationships among the
variables look like graphically in order to reject the null hypothesis?
DUE DATE: October 9, 2012
Assignment 2 – Sampling (40 points)
Develop a 4 to 5-page double-spaced paper to describe who or what you would sample
to evaluate one of the research questions in paper #2 and how you would go about
sampling them. Your paper should address the following issues:
a) Describe in what population the question that you outlined in your first paper
might be reasonably addressed. Justify why this population is appropriate for
your investigation.
b) Describe what criteria you would use to decide who is to be included in the
study and the criteria that you would use to decide who is not going to be in
the study. In other words, what is the sampling frame?
c) Describe the tradeoffs and limitations of your sample frame. Assuming that
your sample perfectly reflects the sampling frame, who can you draw
conclusions about? To whom will your findings not apply?
2/8/2016
2
d) Describe how you would select and recruit people to be in the study. Justify
your choice of selection and recruitment strategies. Why are these methods
an appropriate choice for this particular research project? How might these
choices impact the composition of the sample, relative to the sampling frame?
DUE DATE: October 30, 2012
Assignment 3 – Research Design (40 points)
Develop a 4 to 5-page double-spaced paper describing an experimental or quasiexperimental design which could address one of the research questions in paper #2 and
provide a basis for testing the hypotheses that pertain to that question. Your paper
should address the following issues:
a) Describe the design you have selected and provide a detailed justification for
why it is a suitable design choice for providing an answer to the research
question.
b) Describe precisely how you will operationalize and manipulate the
independent variable(s) associated with the study.
c) Describe the study procedures. What are the key steps? What will a study
participant do?
d) Describe the threats to validity that are most pressing in this particular case
and what you might do to minimize those threats or rule them out as a
plausible alternative explanation for your findings.
DUE DATE: November 20, 2012
In-class Essay Examination (50 points)
The in-class essay examination will be administered on December 11. The final will be
cumulative. The examination will be closed book. Computers, books, PDAs, notes, and
readings may not be used during the exam. No make-up examination will be offered.
You will be provided with a study guide for the examination 2 weeks in advance.
Participation and Preparation (30 points)
Students will be graded on two components of their participation in class activities. On
the due date for each assignment, you will be expected to make a 10-minute
presentation of your paper and key lessons you learned. As part of your presentation,
you will be expected to address question from your classmates on your assignment (15
points). Your will earn points for class participation in weekly discussion of the course
readings and classmates’ presentation (15 points).
2/8/2016
3
Your final grade will be based on a percentage of the total points earned:
90% of 200 points
85% of 200 points
80% of 200 points
75% of 200 points
70% of 200 points
65% of 200 points
60% of 200 points
Less than 60% of 200 points
180 points and above
170 points to 179 points
160 points to 169 points
150 points to 159 points
140 points to 149 points
130 points to 139 points
120 points to 129 points
0 points to 119 points
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.0
Course Policies:
Late assignments
Each assignment will be graded down 5 points for each 24-hour period that it is late.
That is, if your paper earned 20 points but was turned in 48 hours late, you would only
receive 10 points. Papers will be accepted at the beginning of class on the date that
they are due. Papers will not be accepted by email.
Attendance
If you cannot attend class, you must inform me in advance, including providing an
explanation for why you cannot attend. Attendance will be factored into your final grade
for in-class participation. If an assignment is due on a day on which you miss class, you
must arrange for someone to hand it in to me on your behalf.
Academic Integrity
Article 2.3.3 of the Academic Freedom Report states that "The student shares with the
faculty the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of scholarship, grades, and
professional standards." In addition, the Department of Psychology adheres to the
policies on academic honesty as specified in General Student Regulations 1.0,
Protection of Scholarship and Grades; the all-University Policy on Integrity of
Scholarship and Grades; and Ordinance 17.00, Examinations. (See
https://www.msu.edu/unit/ombud/RegsOrdsPolicies.html#General and/or the MSU Web
site: http://www.msu.edu.). Any instance of academic dishonesty will result in receiving
a failing grade for the class.
2/8/2016
4
COURSE SCHEDULE AND READING ASSIGNMENTS
September 4: Introductions and Overview of the Course
No reading.
September 11: Epistemology and Community Psychological Research
Singleton & Straits, chapter 2
Barker, C. & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism:
Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 35, 201-212.
Kingry-Westergaard, C. & Kelly, J. G. (1990). A contextualist epistemology for
ecological research. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L. A. Jason (Eds.). Researching
community psychology: Issues of theory and methods (pp. 23-31). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Rappaport, J. (2005). Community psychology is (thank God) more than science.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 231-238.
Tebes, J. K. (2005). Community science, philosophy of science, and the practice of
research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 213-230.
September 18: Experimental Research Frameworks for Community Research
Coie, J. D., Watt, N. F., West, S. G., Hawkins, J. D., Asarnow, J. R. Markman, H. J., et
al., (1993). The science of prevention: A conceptual framework and some directions for
a national research program. American Psychologist, 48, 1013-1022.
Fairweather, G. W. & Tornatzky, L. G. (1977). Experimental methods for social policy
research. New York: Pergamon. Chapter 1: The basic ingredients of an adequate
social policy.
Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., & Kellam, S. et al.
(2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness, and dissemination.
Prevention Science, 6 151-175.
Hazel, K.L., & Onaga, E. (2003). Experimental social innovation and dissemination: The
promise and its delivery. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 285-294.
September 25: Engaging Communities in Research
Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., Becker, A. B., Allen, A. J., Guzman, J. R.
(2001). Critical issues in developing and following community based participatory
research principles. (pp. 53-76). In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.) Community-based
2/8/2016
5
participatory research for health (pp. 53-76). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kidd, S. A. & Kral, M. J. (2005). Practicing participatory action research. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 52, 187-195.
Minkler, M. (2004). Ethical challenges for the ''outside'' researcher in community-based
participatory research. Health Education and Behavior, 31, 684-697.
Van der Eb, C., Peddle, N., Buntin, M., Isenberg, D. H., Duncan, L., & Everett, S. et al.
(2002). Community concerns about participatory research. . In L. A. Jason, C. B. Keys,
Y. Suarez-Balcazar, R. R. Taylor, & M. I. Davis (Eds.) Participatory community
research: Theories and methods in action (pp. 221-226). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
October 2: Operationalizing Theory and Concepts in Community Research
Singleton & Straits, Chapter 4
Bry, B.H., Hirsch, B.J., Newbrough, J.R., Reischl, T.M., & Swindle, R.W. (1990).
Hypothesis generation: Human science and attribute-centered social regularities. In P.
Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L. Jason (Eds.), Researching community psychology:
Issues of theory and method (pp. 101-108). Washington DC: American Psychological
Association.
Linney, J A. (2000). Assessing ecological constructs and community context. In J.
Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.) Handbook of community psychology (pp. 647-668).
New York: Plenum.
Luke, D. A. (2005). Getting the big picture in community science: Methods that capture
context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 185-200.
Shinn, M. (1990). Mixing and matching: Levels of conceptualization, measurement, and
statistical analysis in community research. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L. Jason
(Eds.), Researching community psychology: Issues of theory and method (pp. 111-126).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association
October 9: Measurement
Singleton & Straits, Chapter 5
Widom, C.S., Dutton, M., Czaja, S.J., & DuMont, K.A. (2005). Development and
validation of a new instrument to assess lifetime trauma and victimization history.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 519-531.
Zimmerman, M.A., & Zahniser, J.H. (1991). Refinements of sphere-specific measures
of perceived control: Development of a sociopolitical control scale. Journal of
2/8/2016
6
Community Psychology, 19, 189-204.
October 16: Sampling
Singleton & Straits, Chapter 6
Acosta, O., & Toro, P. (2000). Let’s ask the homeless people themselves: A needs
assessment based on a probability sample of adults. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 28, 343–366.
October 23: Sampling
Campbell, R., Sefl, T., Wasco, S. M., & Ahrens, C. E. (2004). Doing community
research without a community: Creating safe space for rape survivors. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 253-262.
Heckathorn, D.D. (1997). Respondent-driven sampling: A new approach to the study of
hidden populations. Social Problems, 44, 174-199.
Muhib, F., Lin, L., Steuve, A., Miller, R. L., Ford, W., Johnson, W., Smith, P., & the
Community Intervention Trial for Youth (CITY) Study Team. (2001). A venue-based
method for sampling hard to reach populations. Public Health Reports, 116 (suppl. 2),
216-222.
October 30: Field Experiments
Singleton & Straits, Chapter 7
Devine, J. A., Wright, J. D., & Joyner, L. M. (1994). Issues in implementing a
randomized experiment in a field setting. In K. J. Conrad (Ed.) Critically evaluating the
role of experiments, New Directions for Program Evaluation, (63), 27-40.
Lam, J.A., Hartwell, S.W., & Jekel, J.F. (1994). “I prayed real hard, so I know I’ll get
in:” Living with randomization. In K. J. Conrad (Ed.), Critically evaluating the
role of experiments, New Directions for Program Evaluation, 63, 55-66.
Shadish, W. R. (2002). Revisiting field experimentation: Field notes for the future.
Psychological Methods, 7, 3-18.
November 6: Field Experiments (continued)
Singleton & Straits, Chapter 8
Davidson, W. S., Redner, R., Blakely, C. H., Mitchell, C. M., & Emshoff, J. G. (1987).
Diversion of juvenile offenders: An experimental comparison. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 55, 68-75.
2/8/2016
7
Sullivan, C.M. (2003). Using the ESID model to reduce intimate male violence against
women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 295-303.
Tsemberis, S.J., Moran, L., Shinn, M., Asmussen, S.M., & Shern, D.L. (2003).
Consumer preference programs for individuals who are homeless and have psychiatric
disabilities: A drop-in center and a supported housing program. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 32, 305-317.
November 13: Quasi-experimentation
Campbell, R. (2006). Rape survivors’ experiences with the legal and medical systems:
Do rape victim advocates make a difference? Violence Against Women, 12, 30-45.
McNall, M. A., Lichty, L. F., & Mavis, B. (2010). The impact of school-based health
centers on the health outcomes of middle school and high school students. American
Journal of Public Health, 100, 1604-1610.
Miller, R. L., Klotz, D., & Eckholdt, H. M. (1998). HIV prevention with male prostitutes
and patrons of hustler bars: Replication of an HIV prevention intervention. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 97-131.
Weitzman, B. (2009). Finding the impact in a messy intervention: Using an integrated
design to evaluate a comprehensive citywide health initiative. American Journal of
Evaluation, 30, 495-514.
November 20: Triangulation
Singleton & Straits, Chapter 13
Campbell, R. & Ahrens, C. (1998). Innovative community services for rape victims: An
application of multiple case study methodology. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 26, 537-571.
Langhout, R.D. (2003). Reconceptualizing quantitative and qualitative methods: A case
study dealing with place as an exemplar. American Journal of Community Psychology,
32, 229-244.
November 27: The Ethics of Research with Human Subjects - Fundamental
Principles and Regulatory Procedures (Exam study guide will be handed out
today)
Singleton & Straits, Chapter 3
Miller et al. (2006). Protecting sexual minority youth from research risks: Conflicting
perspectives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 341-348.
2/8/2016
8
O’Neill, P. (1989). Responsible to whom? Responsible for what? Some ethical issues in
community intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 323-341.
Serrano-Garcia, I. (1994). The ethics of the powerful and the power of ethics. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 1-19.
Snow, D. L., Grady, K., & Goyette-Ewing, M. (2000). A perspective on ethical issues in
community psychology. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community
psychology (pp. 897-918). New York: Plenum.
Trickett, E. J. (1998). Toward a framework for defining and resolving ethical issues in
the protection of communities involved in primary prevention projects. Ethics and
Behavior, 8, 321-337.
December 4: Mock IRB Meeting
Gunsalas, C. K., Bruner, E. M., Burbules, N. C., Dash, L, Finkin. M., & Goldberg, J. P. et
al. (2006). Mission creep in the IRB world. Science, 312, 1441.
Levine, F. J. & Skedsvold, P. R. (2008). Where the rubber meets the road: Aligning
IRBs are research practice. Political Science and Practice, July, 501-505.
For this class session, you will serve as an IRB member for a mock in-class IRB
meeting, which I will chair. You will be assigned to serve as a reviewer for one-two IRB
applications, which will be made available on Angel. The reviewers are responsible for
presenting the study to the other members of the IRB, knowing the applications’ details
for the purposes of discussion of it and answering questions about it, helping to develop
solutions to problems that others identify, and making recommendations on the
proposal(s). Your presentation of the application should focus on the following issues:
a) Subject population (who, number, age range, how recruited)
b) Aims and hypotheses
c) Process for obtaining consent and review of the adequacy of the consent
form
d) Risks, including minimization of risk and risk-to-benefit ratio
e) Protected classes of subjects, such as prisoners & children
f) Privacy and confidentiality protections
g) Procedures for documenting consent
h) Concerns and issues regarding the application
i) Recommendations regarding its approval
December 11: In-class Final Examination
2/8/2016
9