A story in USAToday has reported that "Video games help with creativity in boys and girls."
a) What kind of claim is being made in the headline?
Here is a quote from the article about the study's method:
The children were given creative thinking tests – shown a drawing and asked to expand on it or comment on what it means – and then asked about their use of cellphones, computers, the Internet and video games. Only with video games was there a correlation to creativity, the researchers say, and that was true for boys and girls, and across all races.
b.) Given this description, what were the variables in this study? Were they measured or manipulated?
c.) Is a causal claim justified here? Go through the three rules for establishing causation and draw a conclusion.
d.) What can you say about the construct validity of this study?
e.) When the article says that the result was true for boys and girls, describe what this means. Use the word "moderate" in your answer.
Toward the end of the article, the journalist reports:
The researchers have proposed a study to test whether a special touch-screen computer can help kids, ages 3 and 4, with school readiness skills.
f.) How might researchers design a study that could show that a touch-screen computer can actually cause improvement in 3 and 4 year olds' school readiness?
Suggested answers:
a.) This is a causal claim (the verb "help" is a causal verb.)
b.) The description suggests strongly that both variables were self-reported by the children, therefore both were measured variables.
c.) The study's result suggests there is covariance--video game use apparently associated with creativity scores.
Given that both variables were measured at the same time, we cannot establish temporal precedence. It is possible that more creative kids become more likely to play video games, or also that kids who play video games become more creative. We cannot tell from this design.
It is not clear from the description which, if any, third variables were controlled for (internal validity). Perhaps intelligence or family income are associated with both video game use and creativity. You would have to consult the original study to see. However, because it is not an experiment, this study cannot control for all possible third variables.
In short, a correlational design like the one implied in the journalist's description cannot establish or support the causal claim in the headline.
d.) To interrogate construct validity, you ask how well each of the variables was measured. How good is the drawing interpretation test for measuring creativity? Is this measure a well-established measure of creativity? (We can consult the original article to be sure). And how accurate is it to ask children to self-report about their use of electronic media?
e.) This phrase suggests that gender did not moderate the relationship between creativity and video game use. In other words, the correlation coefficient (between creativity and video games) was the same in both gender groups.
f.) The best design for this research goal is an experiment, in which the researchers would manipulate the use of a touch-screen computer (for example by randomly assigning some chidlren to use this equipment and other children to use some control equipment) and then measuring school readiness.
Comments