Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Hancock et al. Evaluation (Validity (good ecological validity as…
Hancock et al. Evaluation
Method
self report method of interviews
lot of data can be collected but take up a lot of time so less participants are involved
Sampling bias
all participants are male so can't generalise to women
volunteer sample so won't represent prisoners who did not volunteer
large sample so lots of data for statistical analysis
Type of data
lots of qualitative data from individual recordings
raw form too detailed and varied to compare directly
each interview transcribed and analysed after to produce quantitative data
Ethnocentrism
study was ethnocentric as was all male Canadian prisoners
Reliability
study reliable as procedure capable of replication and so was linguistic analysis
also had random checks by another researcher so had high level of inter rater reliability
Ethics
confidential as participants remained unidentified
researchers got informed consent which took into account circumstances of imprisonment
participants given full brief before each interview
Validity
good ecological validity as participants interviewed about own crimes which they provide detailed accounts about
interviewing technique designed to avoid leading participants into certain responses
some participants interviewed nearly a decade after their crime
social desirability bias may have reduced validity of responses as wanted to appear remorseful
highly valid measures used to determine psychopathy (PCL-R) and linguistic analysis tools (Wmatrix and DAL) tested for validity and used in other research providing concurrent validity