研究人员如何询问儿童和青少年?发展研究方法的系统评价

IF 4.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL Human Development Pub Date : 2022-09-13 DOI:10.1159/000527006
Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Lindsay C. Malloy, Megan Verhagen, Emily Denne
{"title":"研究人员如何询问儿童和青少年?发展研究方法的系统评价","authors":"Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Lindsay C. Malloy, Megan Verhagen, Emily Denne","doi":"10.1159/000527006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Both the kinds of exchanges and the context under which children are questioned may affect the quality of data. Yet, little is known about how developmental scientists communicate with children for research. Using manifest content analysis, the 3,119 manuscripts published in the top 20 developmental outlets in 2018 were coded for methodology, examining whether researchers communicated directly with children, how they did so, and how they contextualized questioning. We found that over 65% of empirical publications presenting new data questioned children. Researchers used a variety of methodologies (e.g., 64% questionnaires, 51% assessments, 5% interviews). As age increased, the odds of giving children standardized questionnaires, closed-ended questions, and Likert-type questions increased. Researchers rarely reported how they contextualized questioning and rarely utilized supplemental materials. Researchers should consider collecting more qualitative data, better reporting methodologies, and utilizing online spaces to share supplemental materials. These modifications can ensure that we produce the strongest data.","PeriodicalId":47837,"journal":{"name":"Human Development","volume":"66 1","pages":"363 - 376"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Do Researchers Question Children and Adolescents? A Systematic Assessment of Developmental Research Methods\",\"authors\":\"Stacia N. Stolzenberg, Lindsay C. Malloy, Megan Verhagen, Emily Denne\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000527006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Both the kinds of exchanges and the context under which children are questioned may affect the quality of data. Yet, little is known about how developmental scientists communicate with children for research. Using manifest content analysis, the 3,119 manuscripts published in the top 20 developmental outlets in 2018 were coded for methodology, examining whether researchers communicated directly with children, how they did so, and how they contextualized questioning. We found that over 65% of empirical publications presenting new data questioned children. Researchers used a variety of methodologies (e.g., 64% questionnaires, 51% assessments, 5% interviews). As age increased, the odds of giving children standardized questionnaires, closed-ended questions, and Likert-type questions increased. Researchers rarely reported how they contextualized questioning and rarely utilized supplemental materials. Researchers should consider collecting more qualitative data, better reporting methodologies, and utilizing online spaces to share supplemental materials. These modifications can ensure that we produce the strongest data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47837,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Development\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"363 - 376\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000527006\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Development","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000527006","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

交流的种类和询问儿童的背景都可能影响数据的质量。然而,关于发育科学家如何与儿童交流进行研究,人们知之甚少。使用显性内容分析,2018年在20大发展媒体上发表的3119篇手稿被编码为方法论,研究研究人员是否与儿童直接沟通,他们是如何沟通的,以及他们如何将提问置于情境中。我们发现,在提供新数据的实证出版物中,超过65%的出版物对儿童提出了质疑。研究人员使用了多种方法(例如,64%的问卷调查、51%的评估、5%的访谈)。随着年龄的增长,给孩子们提供标准化问卷、封闭式问题和Likert型问题的几率增加。研究人员很少报告他们是如何将提问情境化的,也很少使用补充材料。研究人员应该考虑收集更多的定性数据,更好的报告方法,并利用在线空间分享补充材料。这些修改可以确保我们产生最强的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How Do Researchers Question Children and Adolescents? A Systematic Assessment of Developmental Research Methods
Both the kinds of exchanges and the context under which children are questioned may affect the quality of data. Yet, little is known about how developmental scientists communicate with children for research. Using manifest content analysis, the 3,119 manuscripts published in the top 20 developmental outlets in 2018 were coded for methodology, examining whether researchers communicated directly with children, how they did so, and how they contextualized questioning. We found that over 65% of empirical publications presenting new data questioned children. Researchers used a variety of methodologies (e.g., 64% questionnaires, 51% assessments, 5% interviews). As age increased, the odds of giving children standardized questionnaires, closed-ended questions, and Likert-type questions increased. Researchers rarely reported how they contextualized questioning and rarely utilized supplemental materials. Researchers should consider collecting more qualitative data, better reporting methodologies, and utilizing online spaces to share supplemental materials. These modifications can ensure that we produce the strongest data.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Human Development
Human Development PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Distinguished by its international recognition since 1958, "Human Development" publishes in-depth conceptual articles, commentaries, and essay book reviews that advance our understanding of developmental phenomena. Contributions serve to raise theoretical issues, flesh out interesting and potentially powerful ideas, and differentiate key constructs. Contributions are welcomed from varied disciplines, including anthropology, biology, education, history, philosophy, psychology, and sociology.
期刊最新文献
A Theoretical Framework of the Role of Racism in Adolescent Personal Identity Development: Applications to Racially Marginalized Youth in the U.S. Cheating Engagedly Described and the Judgment-Action Gap Narrowed Widely New Editorship of Human Development The Metaphysics of Development and Evolution. From Thing Ontology to Process Ontology Development of Primal World Beliefs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1