- Resource: the American Psychological Association (APA) Code of Ethics
Select a legal case from the list in Table 2-1 in Ch. 2 of Psychological Testing and Assessment or another case related to psychological assessment.
Write a 1,400- to 1,750-word paper discussing:
- The background of your selected case and the legal implications of the decision
- An analysis of the biases related to the assessments in the case
- The ethical implications for diverse populations in relationship to the case
- The role of norming in creating bias
Data analysis As before, dependent sample t-tests were computed toStruggling to find relevant content or pressed for time? – Don’t worry, we have a team of professionals to help you onAssignment: American Psychological Association (APA) Code of Ethics
assess effects of value. We compared rates of remembering for high- and low-value items, and mean familiarity rating for non-recollected high- and low-value items. To compare recognition performance by word-value, an ROC analysis was performed. An ROC curve was plotted for high-value and low-value words, plotting the cumulative hit and false-alarm rates by value. The area under the ROC curves (Az) for high- vs. low-value items was compared. Az, like A0, falls along the scale of 0.5–1.0 (see Stanislaw and Todorov (1999) for a review).
Results and discussion
Recognition performance Fig. 2 presents a ROC for each word-value, and illus-
trates that high-value items (Az = .75, SD = .10) had a mod- est advantage in recognition over low-value items (Az = .72,
SD = .10), t(60) = 3.18, p = .002, d = 0.41. Furthermore, response bias measure B00D was lower for high-value items (M = �0.03, SD = 0.48) than low-value items (M = 0.05, SD = 0.48), indicating that participants were more biased to rate high-value items as old, t(60) = �2.26, p = .027, d = �0.29. Lastly, there was no significant difference in RTs between high-value words (M = 2018 ms, SD = 597 ms) and low-value words (M = 2102 ms, SD = 691 ms; t(60) = �1.73, p = .088, d = �0.23. Like in Experiment 1, recogni- tion sensitivity was higher for valuable items, thus provid- ing additional support that value enhances recognition.
Recollection and familiarity Fig. 3 illustrates what proportion of high-value, low-
value, and new items were given each of the seven recog- nition responses. A significantly larger proportion of high- value words (M = .40, SD = .19) received a remember response at recognition than that of low-value words (M = .33, SD = 0.20), t(60) = 3.89, p < .001, d = 0.50. In line with Yonelinas and Jacoby (1995), the six responses from Definitely New to Definitely Old were considered an increasing continuum of familiarity strength. Familiarity was not significantly stronger for high-value words (M = 3.46, SD = 0.76) than low-value words (M = 3.40, SD = 0.69), t(60) = 0.81, p = .424, d = 0.10. Additionally, just looking at the items with the strongest familiarity (not Remembered, but Definitely Old), there was no difference in the proportion of high-value (M = .10, SD = .11) and low-value (M = 11, SD = .11) items receiving this response, t(41) = �0.47, p = .640, d = �0.07. Thus, Experiment 2 did not appear to reveal an effect of value on familiarity.
Episodic memories are often characterized by the pres- ence of incidental details from the study episode. In Exper- iment 3, study words were presented in different colors, and on the recognition test participants were asked if they could remember the color and point-value originally asso- ciated with each word that was recognized.