Fidget spinners were extremely popular a couple of years ago. When people promoted them, they often suggested that the toys could help people with ADHD focus and learn more. At the time, such claims were not scrutinized empirically (here's a nice summary of this lack of evidence). It takes time for empirical research to be conducted, analyzed, peer-reviewed, and published, and even though fidget spinners were hot in 2017, we now have a study that tested the effect of using a fidget spinner during a learning task. At least one press outlet covered this study. Here's their summary:
In the first experiment, 98 undergraduate students watched a 15-minute educational video lecture on baking bread while either using a fidget spinner or not using a fidget spinner [randomly assigned]. In addition, half of the participants not using a fidget spinner were randomly assigned to watch the lecture while sitting near someone using a fidget spinner.
A fill-in-the blank memory test showed that participants who used fidget spinners answered significantly fewer questions correctly about the material covered in the video. Participants who used fidget spinners were also more likely to report “zoning out” and having difficulty staying on task while watching the video.
Participants who were sitting near someone using a fidget spinner, however, did not appear to be affected.
Questions
a) This was an experiment. How do you know?
b) What were the IV and DV? How many levels were in the IV and what were they? Was the IV manipulated as independent groups or within groups?
c) Which of the four simple experiments is this: postttest-only? Pretest-posttest? Repeated-measures? Concurrent measures?
d) The journalist attached a causal claim to these results, saying "study finds using a fidget spinner can impair memory and attention." Apply the three criteria for causation to this claim to explain why the causal claim is probably valid. How does random assignment assist this study's internal validity?
e) Ask one question each about the study's statistical, construct, and external validities.
The researchers replicated the effect in a second study. The wondered if fidget spinners might only work among people who believed in their powers:
The researchers then conducted the experiment again. However, this time around they specifically recruited 48 undergraduates who believed that fidget spinners could help them focus in class.
But the results were the same.
According to the empirical journal article, the second study on 48 students was conducted as a repeated measures design, using two videos. Students used a fidget spinner during one video and no spinner during the other one. Students were tested on their recall for the videos after each one.
f) What are the IV and DV in the second study? How many levels were there in the IV?
g) How do you think the researchers used counterbalancing in this second study? Why would that have been important?
You can access the original empirical article here, though you may need to log in via your university library.
