A student is designing an investigation to examine how a high-intensity interval training program affects recovery time and psychological wellbeing in adolescents.
Evaluate the effectiveness of using a combination of observation, interviews, and surveys as data collection methods for this investigation, considering the validity and reliability of each method. (8 marks)
--- 18 WORK AREA LINES (style=lined) ---
Show Answers Only
Sample Answer
Evaluation Statement
- Data collection methods are moderately effective for investigating recovery time and psychological wellbeing using validity and reliability criteria.
Validity
- Observation strongly meets validity requirements for measuring recovery time through visible physiological indicators.
- Heart rate return and breathing normalisation provide direct evidence of physical recovery that accurately reflects training responses.
- However, observation fails to achieve validity for psychological wellbeing measurement as mental states cannot be directly observed.
- Interviews adequately fulfil validity for psychological wellbeing by capturing participants’ internal experiences and feelings about training.
- Surveys partially meet validity requirements by providing standardised psychological measurements but may miss individual differences.
Reliability
- Observation demonstrates high reliability when using standardised protocols and consistent measurement techniques across all participants.
- Multiple observers and clear criteria for recovery indicators enhance reliability of physical measurements.
- Interviews show limited reliability due to subjective interpretation and varying interviewer techniques affecting consistency.
- Participant responses may change between sessions, reducing reliability of psychological data collection.
- Surveys achieve superior reliability through standardised questions and consistent administration procedures.
Final Evaluation
- The combination proves partially effective with observation excelling for physical measures and surveys providing reliable psychological data.
- Although interviews provide valuable detailed information, their reliability issues limit the overall effectiveness of research findings.
Show Worked Solution
Sample Answer
Evaluation Statement
- Data collection methods are moderately effective for investigating recovery time and psychological wellbeing using validity and reliability criteria.
Validity
- Observation strongly meets validity requirements for measuring recovery time through visible physiological indicators.
- Heart rate return and breathing normalisation provide direct evidence of physical recovery that accurately reflects training responses.
- However, observation fails to achieve validity for psychological wellbeing measurement as mental states cannot be directly observed.
- Interviews adequately fulfil validity for psychological wellbeing by capturing participants’ internal experiences and feelings about training.
- Surveys partially meet validity requirements by providing standardised psychological measurements but may miss individual differences.
Reliability
- Observation demonstrates high reliability when using standardised protocols and consistent measurement techniques across all participants.
- Multiple observers and clear criteria for recovery indicators enhance reliability of physical measurements.
- Interviews show limited reliability due to subjective interpretation and varying interviewer techniques affecting consistency.
- Participant responses may change between sessions, reducing reliability of psychological data collection.
- Surveys achieve superior reliability through standardised questions and consistent administration procedures.
Final Evaluation
- The combination proves partially effective with observation excelling for physical measures and surveys providing reliable psychological data.
- Although interviews provide valuable detailed information, their reliability issues limit the overall effectiveness of research findings.