Discussion part - Coursework Example

The results of this research are unable to agree with the results of previous similar research. During previous studies, children who fall below 18 months are unable to pass the Rouge test. This is because they do not have the capability of identifying themselves in a mirror. In this research, participant number 4 recognised himself in the mirror. He was also able to show, the rouge mark of the mother and that of the experimenter at their face. The participant was only 14 months and five days old. However, previous research indicates that only children, who are over 18 months, can identify themselves in the mirror, hence, this research was a failure.
It is not prudent to accept the reliability of the coding scheme, and this is because it is low. This conclusion is based from the results of my inter-observer agreement, which was 64.8%. For purposes of improving this coding system, it is important to train experimenters, before allowing them to conduct an observation. The required percentage of passing this t6raining should be 80%. Furthermore, the result of Cohen Kappa was .394. This is also an indication that the coding system is low, and unacceptable. Nevertheless, the values of Cohen Kappa are low, in comparison to the values of the inter-observation agreement. This is mainly because of the total-by-total method that the simple agreement was based on, when compared to the point-by-point method that was used by Cohen Kappa. Furthermore, the stern nature of the train in the Cohen Kappa agreement played a role in contributing to the values of the above figures.

From the results of this experiment, the simple agreement had a low value. Furthermore, it was also problematic to use the rouge behaviours that were found in the coding system. This is because the wording of codes was very ambiguous. The reason for a low value of the simple agreement is based on the differences between observer 1 and 2. Take for example code 26. This code was observed frequently, and because of my different understanding of its definition, this code had the capability of working efficiently for me, if its definition was not ambiguous. During these experiments, I was also able to ignore code 30. This is because observe 1 and 2 were not able to observe it. This is an indication that this code did not occur frequently. The reason for my inability to understand this code was based on my inadequate training. This is prior to accessing the videos. Furthermore, there were no supervisors; hence, I achieved difficulty in understanding some elements of the coding system. Understanding physical codes was not essential for this research, when compared to the social codes. Social codes were important because it helped in the identification of specific characters that matched the criteria for coding. Furthermore, the use of technology was important, because it helped in increasing the reliability of the results of this experiment. For example, a video camera placed on top of a mirror will capture the results of the experiment; hence it will provide reliable data during the process of analysis. This would help in increasing the reliability of the data collected.

The area where the researcher conducted this experiment was in the laboratory. Furthermore, the major strength of this experiment was its capability to influence the various variables that are related to this study. However, because it was not a realistic set up, it was possible to achieve an ecological validity for this research. The use of the video camera was essential for this research, because the researcher could rewind it, for purposes of looking into any information that he missed during the process of collecting data. This helped in increasing the reliability of the results of this research. Furthermore, the results of these experiments were encouraging, because they were not similar to previous findings. This is an indication of an independent research. Read More