Methodology

● Everything in purple, black and red is my own words for each section
● Burgundy is examples
● Orange is quotes
● Links are citations
● Light blue is instructions for sections
Methods – 900 – 1200
https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/methodology/
Methods
● Design
● Participants
● Materials
● Procedure
● Ethical Considerations

3.6 Methods
The purpose of the Method section is to describe how you carried out the study in
sufficient detail that it could be replicated. The information is presented under five sub-
headings. Avoid unnecessary repetition between sub-sections.

Design
265 words
This study explores the relationship between mental well-being status and the knowledge of well-being facilities among 4 groups: first year, second year, third year and master/Phd university students. Additionally, the study will also look at the differences between the mental well-being of participants across the years. The study is a correlational Independent between-groups design. A One-way MANOVA with factors design was employed where the Well-being score, Perceived stress score and Well-being services knowledge score were within-subjects factors and participants’ Year group was between-subjects factor. The Well-being score had 4 levels: very low, below average, average and above average. The Perceived stress score 3 levels: low stress, moderate stress and high perceived stress. And the Well-being service knowledge 4 levels: no knowledge of services, low knowledge of services, moderate knowledge of services and high knowledge of services. The year group (independent variables) had four levels: Measure 1 being first year students, measure 2 second year students, measure 3 third year students and measure 4 masters and Phd students. Other factors were also measured: participants’ use of mental well-being services external to university mental well-being services, participants’ help seeking behaviour and the participants’ perception of how useful their university’s well-being services are, however, these were not analysed exclusively as a part of this dissertation project. A Pearson’s correlation coefficient will be used. A cross tabulation of the variables will be presented, chi-square tests, a separate frequency table for each variable and a bar chart showing the results. The dependent variables were the well-being score, perceived stress score and well-being facility score obtained from the studies survey.
The study evaluated the musical memory among three age groups: youngest (20-30 years old), middle-age (40-50 years old) and eldest (60-70 years old).

This short sub-section should contain a brief description of the design and major variables.
● State the type of design employed (e.g. independent groups, correlational, within subjects, survey, etc.).
This study explores the relationship between wellbeing status and knowledge of wellbeing services. Additionally, the study looks at differences in the wellbeing of subjects to establish how this changes across the years. The study is a correlational Independent between-groups design.

The study measured and evaluated the mental well-being scores, perceived stress scores and mental well-being knowledge of 3 university year groups. These dependent variables
The study design is a correlational design that will explore the relationship between wellbeing status and knowledge of wellbeing services. Secondary analysis will also look at between subjects differences in wellbeing to establish how this changes across the years.

Well-being scores using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS)
Anxiety/Stress scores from using the Perceived stress scale
Well-being facility knowledge score – Questionnaire about students knowledge of wellbeing facilities available in institution.

● State the major variables and their operational definition (a clear, concise description of how the variables were achieved/measured, if appropriate).

musical memory among three age groups: youngest (20-30 years old), middle-age (40-50 years old) and eldest (60-70 years old).
IV: Year group. 3 Levels. Measure 1 is first year students, measure 2 is Second Year students and measure 3 is 3rd year students. Independent between-groups design.

15
No Knowledge of Services – 0
Low knowledge of services 1-3
Moderate knowledge of services 4-6
High knowledge of services 7 +

–
265 words
This study explores the relationship between mental well-being status and the knowledge of well-being facilities among 4 groups: first year, second year, third year and master/Phd university students. Additionally, the study will also look at the differences between the mental well-being of participants across the years. The study is a correlational Independent between-groups design. A One-way MANOVA with factors design was employed where the Well-being score, Perceived stress score and Well-being services knowledge score were within-subjects factors and participants’ Year group was between-subjects factor. The Well-being score had 4 levels: very low, below average, average and above average. The Perceived stress score 3 levels: low stress, moderate stress and high perceived stress. And the Well-being service knowledge 4 levels: no knowledge of services, low knowledge of services, moderate knowledge of services and high knowledge of services. The year group (independent variables) had four levels: Measure 1 being first year students, measure 2 second year students, measure 3 third year students and measure 4 masters and Phd students. Other factors were also measured: participants’ use of mental well-being services external to university mental well-being services, participants’ help seeking behaviour and the participants’ perception of how useful their university’s well-being services are, however, these were not analysed exclusively as a part of this dissertation project. A Pearson’s correlation coefficient will be used. A cross tabulation of the variables will be presented, chi-square tests, a separate frequency table for each variable and a bar chart showing the results. The dependent variables were the well-being score, perceived stress score and well-being facility score obtained from the studies survey.
–

● For a correlation, state the variables that were measured.
The key dependent variables (s)? [max 70 words] The dependent variable is the thing that you measure. For example: number of words remembered, heart rate, reaction time, etc. Just focus on the most important dependent variable(s).
Well-being scores using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS)
Anxiety/Stress scores from using the Perceived stress scale
Well-being facility knowledge score – Questionnaire about students knowledge of wellbeing facilities available in institution.
What is/are the independent variable(s) that you plan to manipulate? [max 70 words] The independent variable is the thing that you manipulate, e.g. whether participants are assigned to the intervention or control group or whether they remember complex or simple words. Describe which variables are repeated measures (e.g. within subject) and which are independent measures (e.g. between groups).
IV: Year group. 3 Levels. Measure 1 is first year students, measure 2 is Second Year students and measure 3 is 3rd year students. Independent between-groups design.
What analyses will you use to test the main question of the study? [max 70 words] Here state the exact analysis you will run. For example: 2 x 3 Repeated Measures ANOVA with factors: time (before, after) and word type (easy, medium, hard).
One-way MANOVA with factors: Well-being score (very low, below average, average, high), Anxiety/Stress score (Low, average, high), Well-being facility knowledge score and Year group.

● State details of any controlled variables and/or measures taken to control for potential confounds (e.g. counterbalancing, details of randomisation, double-blind procedure, etc.).

The dependent variables will be the following 1), Well-being scores using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) ( ) , 2) Anxiety/Stress scores from using the Perceived stress scale and 3) Well-being facility knowledge score – Questionnaire about students knowledge of wellbeing facilities available in institution. The independent variable is Year group and has 4 Levels. Measure 1 is first year students, measure 2 is Second Year students, measure 3 is 3rd year students and measure 4 is masters and PhD students.

________________________________________

Participant
Example:
Participants were recruited using stratified sampling. A total of 278 people accessed the questionnaire of which 106 were excluded due to incomplete responses and/or not meeting 1the expected criteria (i.e musician/working in the music industry). The current sample included 172 participants (84 males, 88 females). 66 of the participants were professional musicians, 56 amateurs and 49 worked in the music industry. They were all aged 19-66 years (M=38.68, SD=12.67). Participants’ ethnicities included: 86% white, 3% black, 4% Asians, 6% mixed races and 2% other. Participants were from different geographical locations including the United Kingdom, Australia, Benelux, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, India and the United States.

Professional musicians were considered so via self-report on the questionnaire. 56% of participants stated music as their primary source of income while 37% felt they were mostly successful in their field.

This sub-section should give details of who took part in your study, including:

● Online recruitment.via email and social media and through snowballing sampling
● I’ll use a link (qualtrics online survey) to distribute my survey via social media posts such as tweets, whatsapp broadcasts and tumblr posts. I also plan on using word of mouth to recruit participants.

participants’
emails. This snowballing sampling did not require participants to be placed in a specific conditions

Upon completion the results will be entered into a One-way MANOVA with factors: Well-being score (Low, average, high), Anxiety/Stress score (Low, average, high), Well-being facility knowledge score and Year group; entered into spss for analysis. This research would be relevant in better accessing future outreach for university services and the effectiveness of the service for those who do use it.

Who will be your participants? (age, gender, etc.)
Participants must be aged 18 and 30, and in attendance at a UK university to complete this questionnaire. Participants of any gender or ethnicity are welcome to take part in this research.

How do you intend to recruit your participants?
Online recruitment.via email and social media and through snowballing sampling

I’ll use a link (qualtrics online survey) to distribute my survey via social media posts such as tweets, whatsapp broadcasts and tumblr posts. I also plan on using word of mouth to recruit participants.

What will the participant be asked to do?
Participants will be asked to read a participant information sheet and sign a consent form.

Participants will then be asked to complete an online questionnaire which collects demographic data (gender, age and nationality), then they’ll be asked to fill out 3 separate surveys. Survey 1) University Well-being Services Survey, 2) The Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) (14 item scale) and 3) The Perceived Stress Scale (10 item scale).

Participants will then be asked to read a debrief sheet

● The number of participants.

● How the participants were selected (sampling method) and the population from which they were drawn.

● The gender distribution and age (mean, +SD) of the sample, together with any other pertinent characteristics (e.g. educational level, handedness, quality of eyesight, etc.). Make a sensible decision as to which participant characteristics are relevant, and should be measured.

The gender distribution
21 Women
17 Men

New total 35 /42

age (mean, +SD) of the sample

15 participants are 18 – 21
18 participants are 22 – 25
5 participants 26 – 30
0 participants 30 +

Total: 38

Male – 17
Female – 21
Non completed – 4

26 – 30 / women 2 + Men 2
22 – 25 / women 11 + Men 7
18 – 21 / women

3rd year = 4
2nd year = 6
1st year = 4
Masters/Phd = 2
The question of year group did not appear for other participants unfortunately

24 British participants (5 identified as Black Birtish)
1 French
1 Ghanaian
1Caribbean
1 Polish
1 Nigerian
1 Chinese
1 Swiss
2 Pakistani
1 Libyan
1 Bengali
● pertinent characteristics (e.g. educational level, handedness, quality of eyesight, etc.).
Year group

First year students

Second year students

Third year students

And Master/Phd Students

● If any participants do not complete the study, state the number and reasons (if known). For example, “One participant indicated that they were familiar with one of the target faces. Their data were excluded from the analysis”.

Although 38 responses were recorded only 35 were completed and had participants that met the sampling criteria. Three participants were unable to complete the study due to not attending a UK university or from not completing the survey.

——-

Materials
2.2 Materials (Example)

For this experiment all participants required access to the internet. This was essential to
retrieve a link to the online questionnaire on Qualtrics. The questionnaire was compatible with all devices including smart phones, computers/laptops and iPads.

This sub-section should contain a description of all the materials and equipment used in
the study, stated in sufficient detail for an experienced investigator to obtain equivalent
materials to replicate the study.

● Describe any stimulus materials (e.g. images, written materials) and how these were selected, and include them in an Appendix.

1) Well-being scores using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) ( ) ,
2) Anxiety/Stress scores from using the Perceived stress scale and
3) Well-being facility knowledge score – Questionnaire about students’ knowledge of wellbeing facilities available in the institution.

2) The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and (10 item scale) (Appendix II)
The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), is a short scale which is a measure of the degree to which situations in one’s life are appraised as stressful.

4) Adverts (Appendix IV)

5) Participant information sheet (Appendix VI)

6) Consent form ( Appendix VII)

7) Debrief sheet (Appendix VIII)

● Provide details of validated scales/measures or psychometric tests employed. For a survey involving the measurement of several variables using scales, this section could be called “Measures”. Each scale should be described (e.g. number of items, an example item, scoring, reliability, validity, etc.) and included in an Appendix.

Measures

2.2.1 Measures (example)

Demographic information was collected at the beginning of the questionnaire. These included age, gender, geographical location and ethnicity. Additional questions on income and perceived level of success were asked. A simple “yes” or “no” question was asked: “have you ever suffered anxiety/ depression?”. Self-report questions were used to determine professional musicians, those in the music industry and solo artists.

2.2.1.1 Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS)
Anxiety and depression were measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale
(HADS) (Zigmond & Snaith, 1983). The HADS is a 14 item self-report scale consisting of 7 items measuring anxiety and 7 items measuring depressive symptoms. The items presented were rated on a 4-point likert scale from ‘0’ (not at all) to ‘3’ (most of the time) which indicated severity of the symptoms. Participants were asked to rate statements such as “I feel tense or wound up” (anxiety scale) and “I still enjoy the things I used to enjoy” (depression scale). Both anxiety and depression were scored between 0-21 with higher scores indicating higher levels of anxiety and depression. These are classified into normal (0-7), mild (8-10) and moderate/severe (11-21). The HADS is widely used across several populations and is available in multiple languages. It has been shown to exhibit good sensitivity, sufficient diagnostic accuracy and validity (Norton, Cosco, Doyle, Done &; Sacker, 2013; Bjelland, Dahl, Haug & Neckelmamm, 2002).

2.2.1.2 Well-being scale (WHO-5)
Well-being was measured using World Health Organisation Well-being Index (WHO-5).
The WHO-5 is a 5 item self-report scale measured on a 6-point likert scale from ‘0’ (at no time) to ‘5’ (all of the time) with higher scores indicating better well-being. Participants were asked to rate statements such as “I have felt cheerful and in good spirits” according to how they have been feeling over the past two weeks. Well-being scores were calculated by adding raw scores and multiplying them by four. Final scores ranged from 0-100 with higher scores indicating better well-being. The WHO-5 has shown adequate validity and reliability across several studies on various populations (Topp, Østergaard, Søndergaard & Bech, 2015).

1) is The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) Scale (14 item scale) (Appendix I)
The WEMWBS is made of 14 positively worded items for assessing the mental wellbeing of the young adult population.
● Each scale should be described (e.g. number of items, an example item, scoring, reliability, validity, etc.

WEMWBS is a measure of mental well-being focusing entirely on positive
aspects of mental health. As a short and psychometrically robust scale,
with no ceiling effects in a population sample, it offers promise as a tool for
monitoring mental well-being at a population level.
Whilst WEMWBS should appeal to those evaluating mental health
promotion initiatives, it is important that the scale’s sensitivity to change is
established before it is recommended in this context.

Population Adolescent and Adult
Type of Measure Self-report scale
The scale consists of 14 items covering both hedonic and eudaimonic aspects of mental health including positive affect (feelings of optimism, cheerfulness, relaxation), satisfying interpersonal relationships and positive functioning (energy, clear thinking, self acceptance, personal development, competence and autonomy).

Individuals completing the scale are required to tick the box that best describes their experience of each statement over the past two weeks using a 5-point Likert scale (none of the time, rarely, some of the time, often, all of the time). The Likert scale represents a score for each item from 1 to 5 respectively, giving a minimum score of 14 and maximum score of 70. All items are scored positively. The overall score for the WEMWBS is calculated by totalling the scores for each item, with equal weights. A higher WEMWBS score therefore indicates a higher level of mental well-being.

SCORING
WEMWBS is very simple to score. The total score is obtained by summing
the score for each of the 14 items. The latter ranges from 1 – 5 and the
total score from 14-70.
0-32 points
Your wellbeing score is very low.
32-40 points
Your wellbeing score is below average.
40-59 points
Your wellbeing score is average.
59-70 points
Good news, your wellbeing score is above average.
Most people have a score between 41 and 59.

An example of….
= I’ve been feeling optimistic about the future
None of the time 1
Rarely 2
Some of the time 3
Often 4
All of the time 5

Reliability and Validity
In aiming to explore the relationship between mental well-being status and the knowledge of well-being facilities and through research of similar studies, conducting a correlational independent between-groups design would be the best method for my research. Studies such as (Tennant et al, 2007), collated scores to best conduct research for their aims, therefore similar methods would have the ability to do the same but also reflect validity and reliability. Internal consistency and validity is obtained through this methodology. Internal consistency tests such as Cronbach’s alpha are commonly used within research that contains surveys that utilise a scale in which the researcher can determine if their scale is reliable to measure their aim (Brace, Kemp and Snelgar 2009). In asking questions (include one of your survey questions here) to the sample that contain a scale regarding wellbeing, internal consistency is obtained. Tennant et al 2007 utilized scales within their work to discover “a wide conception of well-being, including affective-emotional aspects, cognitive-evaluative dimensions and psychological functioning”. Internal consistency using Crohns alpha test was obtained within desired limits for Tennant et al’s study and internal consistency was obtained. Considering internal consistency was desired within limits of utilising scales within questions, this method can showcase reliability on a lower to higher scale.

Test-restest reliability was also obtained with Tennant et’s (2007) work employing the same methodology choice within this research using. Test-retest reliability presented within studies signifies that the methodology presents internal validity and that the collecting of data within one sitting can represent and viewed as stable over time for the student population correlation of knowledge of wellbeing services and their wellbeing. As Tennant et al’s study provided a score of 0.83 which for test-retest reliability classed as good reliability for providing questions containing a Wellbeing Scale for participants. Construct validity is discussed with Tennant et al’s work regarding the Wellbeing Scale being applied within their questions. Construct validity “is the extent to which the measurements used, often questionnaires test the hypothesis or theory they are measuring. It demonstrates that scores on a particular test do predict a theoretical trait” (Bruce, Pope, Stanistreet 2008). Analysis of the student sample in Tennant et al’s study, showed an adequate value was established to state that the Wellbeing Scale does reflect the aim of identifying and verifying the student populations wellbeing and how evaluating projects can influence mental wellbeing. (Tenant etl al 2007). Their tests showed that when the Wellbeing Scale measured factors related to Wellbeing and how this affects the student population there were high correlations proven. High correlations were also present within Tenant’s Wellbeing Scale and life satisfaction for the student population.

Bruce, N., Pope, D., & Stanistreet, D. (2008). Quantitative methods for health research: A practical interactive guide to epidemiology and statistics. West Sussex: Wiley. – add citiation to bibliography

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1976131712000527
●

The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) (PSS; Cohen, Kamarch, & Mermelstein, 1983) is a scale and psychological tool widely used within research to measure an individual’s perception within one’s life. This measure considers uncontrollable external factors within a participants life and attempts to understand how much these factors are impacting respondents through this scale. This scale allows respondents to self-report their own levels of stress (Cohen et al., 1983, p. 385). Studies of PSS have found correlations with with high scores within the study to participants failure to quit smoking (citation needs to found and added), failure among diabetics to control blood sugar levels (citation needs to be added) and greater vulnerability to stressful life-event-elicited depressive symptoms more colds (citation to be found and added) Through PSS discussing and identifying these correlations within research, “internal consistency reliability ((Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991)) factorial validity, and hypothesis validity of the PSS can be reported (citation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1976131712000527)”.
To form conclusions from surveys using PSS, scores are obtained, reversed For example “0 = 4, 1 = 3, 2 = 2, 3 = 1 & 4 = 0) to the four positively stated items (items 4, 5, 7, & 8) and then summing across all scale items” (citation – Cohen – file:///home/chronos/u-a5d863aac9764989fa8bd283198f1c14314d2ed7/MyFiles/Downloads/PerceivedStressScale%20(2).pdf).

Reliability and validity is obtained through PSS as the questions are easy for respondents to answer (citation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1976131712000527), and alternative answers can be understand and translated by researcher and you can direct these forms of scale similar to PSS to a subpopulation for the purpose of the study. However there are criticisms of PSS. PSS has been utilised and validated in studies in which the subpopulation is college students or workers, there is lack of validated studies in with diverse populations. PSS has been translated into 25 different languages but these studies have yet to be validated (citation – Mimura and Griffiths 2008 within BMC Psychiatry 2008; 8: 5 – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2569029/, Dao-Tran, Anderson & Seib 2017 within BMC Psychiatry 2017, 17, article 53 – https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-017-1221-6).
WIthin studies that utilise PSS, The test-retest reliability and criterion validity were rarely evaluated (Hyun-Lee – https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1976131712000527). Fayers & Machin found in 2007 that upon a third retest of PSS after 6 weeks following a 2 day and 4 weeks that the retest reliability was not satisfactory. It was recommended from this study that clinicians and researchers should consider longitudinal studies for PSS and reassess every 6 weeks (see citation for Fayers and Machine – https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470024522.ch4).

CItations to be added – bibliography
Mimura and Griffith – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2569029/
Dao-Tran, Anderson & Seib 2017 – https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-017-1221-6

● Each scale should be described (e.g. number of items, an example item, scoring, reliability, validity, etc.

Moreover, the questions are of a general nature and hence are relatively free of content specific to any subpopulation group. The questions in the PSS ask about feelings and thoughts during the last month. In each case, respondents are asked how often they felt a certain way.

Health status relationship to PSS: Cohen et al. (1988) show correlations with PSS and: Stress Measures, SelfReported Health and Health Services Measures, Health Behavior Measures, Smoking Status, Help Seeking
Behavior.

Temporal Nature: Because levels of appraised stress should be influenced by daily hassles, major events, and
changes in coping resources, predictive validity of the PSS is expected to fall off rapidly after four to eight weeks.

Scoring: PSS scores are obtained by reversing responses (e.g., 0 = 4, 1 = 3, 2 = 2, 3 = 1 & 4 = 0) to the four positively
stated items (items 4, 5, 7, & 8) and then summing across all scale items. A short 4 item scale can be made from
questions 2, 4, 5 and 10 of the PSS 10 item scale.
Norm Groups: L. Harris Poll gathered information on 2,387 respondents in the U.S

Other sources of information:

The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen, Kamarch, & Mermelstein, 1983) is one of the more popular tools for measuring psychological stress. It is a self-reported questionnaire that was designed to measure “the degree to which individuals appraise situations in their lives as stressful” (Cohen et al., 1983, p. 385). The PPS items evaluate the degree to which individuals believe their life has been unpredictable, uncontrollable, and overloaded during the previous month. The assessed items are general in nature rather than focusing on specific events or experiences.

Internal consistency reliability, factorial validity, and hypothesis validity of the PSS were well reported. However, the test-retest reliability and criterion validity were relatively rarely evaluated. The psychometric properties of the PSS have been evaluated empirically mostly using populations of college students or workers.

Psychometric properties evaluated
● The most common cohort in these psychometric studies of the PSS comprised college students (Table 2), and the sample sizes in the studies ranged from 60 to 2,387 (Table 1).

● This paper has reviewed studies of the psychometric properties of the PSS. It was found that the internal consistency reliability of this tool has been established, though Cronbach’s alpha (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991).

● The test-retest reliability of the PSS, (Fayers & Machin, 2007).
the PSS demonstrated satisfactory test-retest reliability when its first and second administrations were separated by between 2 days and 4 weeks. However, when this interval was 6 weeks, the test-retest reliability was not satisfactory (r = .55). This may imply that the duration of the stability of PSS might be less than 6 weeks. If this is the case, clinicians or researchers using the PSS may consider reassessing the PSS score every 6 weeks. A systematic, longitudinal study of changes in PSS scores is required to further clarify this.

● According to Cohen et al. (1983), the PSS measures general stress and is thus relatively free of content that is specific to any particular population. However, the PSS has been empirically validated with populations of mainly college students or workers. It is necessary to validate the PSS with more diverse populations (e.g., specific or mixed clinical populations) and in various cultures. It has been translated into 25 languages, but some of the translated (i.e., non-English-language) forms have yet to be empirically validated. Furthermore, a multicultural psychometric evaluation of the PSS is recommended.

the PSS is a short and easy to use questionnaire established with acceptable psychometric properties. However, the test-retest reliability, criterion validity, and known-groups validity of the PSS need to be evaluated further. In general, the psychometric properties of the PSS-10 are superior to those of the PSS-14. Therefore, it is recommended that the PSS-10 be used to measure perceived stress, both in practice and research.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1976131712000527

3) Well-being facilities knowledge. (Appendix III)
And the well-being facilities knowledge survey will look at students’ knowledge of well-being services. The survey should only take 15 minutes to complete.
● Each scale should be described (e.g. number of items, an example item, scoring, reliability, validity, etc.

● For all materials included in an Appendix refer the reader to the appropriate one (e.g. see Appendix II) in the text.

Nominal data to try exclude issues with external variables
Can’t be used to look a large sample sets
Representation
A reflection of pp behaviour
Lack of external validity
Limitation
——–

Procedure
Participants were invited to take part in an approximately 35-minutes-long study arranged
for every participant individually during the time and at the location that were convenient for them. Most of the testing sessions were conducted in research cubicles at the University of Westminster but some participants were also tested in other quiet places, including libraries or offices in their workplaces. Participants read the information sheet, signed a consent form and discussed any questions they had prior to the study. The structure of the study and instructions for participants were explained before the testing began. Copies of the Participant Information sheet, Consent form and Debrief are in the Appendices section (Appendices 4, 5 and 6).

The experiment began with the participants completing a paper version of the Gold-MSI
questionnaire that measured their musical sophistication and provided some demographic data (Appendix 9). Then the participants took the music recognition test on a university laptop. The test started with a short trial with three very popular songs to make the participants familiar with the procedure. After that, the participants listened to seventy 0.7s-long music clips played in a randomised order. Each clip was followed by a recognition test i.e. a question whether participants recognise the song or not. If they answered ‘no’, another clip was played. If they answered ‘yes’, a question about how confident they were they recognised the song appeared: participants inserted their answer on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Then, the Remember/Know paradigm appeared.

The participants were instructed to choose ‘Remember’ if they could recollect the title of the song and/or the artist, and/or if they had any specific memories connected to the song. They were instructed to answer ‘Know’ if they were sure they recognised the song but could not remember the title or the artist, nor had any memories connected to the song. A special care was taken to reassure that the differences between ‘Remember’ and ‘Know’ options were clear, i.e. the participants cleared any doubts before starting the test.

After listening to all 0.7s clips, the participants got another song recognition test with longer
(5s) clips of the same songs. The participants again answered whether they recognised the songs. For the recognised songs in addition to the confidence and Remember/Know ratings, the participants were also asked to rate on 5-point Likert-type scales how much they liked these songs and how often they listened to them recently and in the past.

–

This sub-section should give a step-by-step description of how the study was carried out,
stated in sufficient detail for an experienced investigator to replicate the study. It should
include what both the researcher and the participants did, for example:

● The procedure for allocating participants to condition or group.

Due to issues of covid-19 during the time of the study participant recruitment was done via online recruitment. The software qualtrics was used to form the questionnaire, and a distribution link which was used to distribute the survey in adverts on social media posts such as tweets, whatsapp broadcasts and tumblr posts and in emails sent to participants that had agreed prior to the covid-19 pandemic to participate in the study via opportunity sampling on campus prior to march 2020.
● The instructions that were given generally to all participants and those that were given to any sub-group separately. These can be summarised, unless they comprise an experimental manipulation in which case they should be presented verbatim (word-for-word, exactly as they were given to the participants). If the verbatim instructions are very long, they could be presented in an Appendix to which the reader is referred.
Participants would only need the questionnaire link and an internet connection enabled device to complete the questionnaire. The initial page of the questionnaire informs and asks participants to read a participant information sheet and to sign a consent form. Participants were then taken to another page which instructed them to complete an online questionnaire which collects demographic data (gender, age, nationality and year of study) and then were asked to fill out 3 separate surveys (2 scales and 1 survey) within Qualtrics. Survey 1) University Well-being Services Survey, 2) The Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) (14 item scale) and 3) The Perceived Stress Scale (10 item scale). The online survey will then take the participants to a page to read a debrief sheet of the questionnaires.
Participants were asked to fill out 3 questionnaires

● The activities in which the participants engaged.

N.B. A common error is for students to mix in the learning process with the study. For
example, after data has been collected the tutor will discuss aspects of the study such as
the major variables. This discussion is not part of the study and therefore should not be
included in the report.
—–
—–
Ethical Considerations

The project followed the British Psychological Society Code of Conduct and has been
approved by the University of Westminster Research Ethics Committee (see Appendix 3).
Participation was entirely voluntary and participants were free to withdraw at any time without giving a reason. All of the data and information collected during this research was anonymous and kept confidential, only viewed by the researcher and the supervisor who anonymised participants’ contribution to the study. All participants read the information sheet, signed the consent form and were given a debrief sheet after the study (the documents are attached in the Appendices).

You must abide by the BPS Code of Human Research Ethics (2014) 5 when carrying out
any study. Briefly mention the ethical procedures that were adhered to e.g.

details of ethical approval,

briefing,
8.1 Will you provide participants with a Participant Information Sheet prior to obtaining informed consent which can be taken away by the participant?
● Yes

8.2 Will you describe the procedures to participants in advance, so that they are informed about what to expect?
● Yes

● informed consent,
8.3 Will you obtain informed consent for participation (normally written)?
● Yes
8.4 Will you tell participants that they may withdraw from the research at any time and for any reason?
● Yes

● Anonymity

8.6 Will you tell participants that their data will be treated as confidential and that, if published, it will not be identifiable as theirs?
● Yes

● The extent of confidentiality of data,
Confidentiality
How will you store and make secure the data and/or material of human origin collected in the study?
● Data will be stored securely (filed according to SOP7 Study Master File and Site File Set-up) and the secure destruction of research data involves using irreversible methods to ensure that the data is no longer usable.

● debriefing etc.
8.7 Will you offer feedback to participants at the end of their participation, upon request (e.g. give them a brief explanation of the study and its outcomes)?
● Yes

Further, consider potential ethical issues that were specific to your study (if any) and how these were avoided.
– Well-being
If any of the participants have had or experienced issues with mental well-being the survey could potentially be triggering to them, to deal with this the participant information sheet explained the study giving a warning and right to withdraw to participants as well as mental health organisations contacts details being provided on the debrief sheet for their use.

Ethical guidelines of anonymity and confidentiality were followed:

the participants completed their questionnaires in private;

no identifying information was requested;

the participants placed the completed

questionnaires in a sealed box;

and they were informed that the anonymised data would

only be shared with the research team.

Consider the following example from a study which included a question about participants’ frequency of imprisonment (the answer could include zero):

If any of the participants had ever been imprisoned then the frequency of imprisonment
question could be a sensitive issue for them. Ethical guidelines of anonymity and
confidentiality were followed: the participants completed their questionnaires in
private; no identifying information was requested; the participants placed the completed
questionnaires in a sealed box; and they were informed that the anonymised data would
only be shared with the research team.
Well-being

8.5 Will you give participants the option of omitting questions they do not want to answer?
● Yes

Notes:
● The Ethical Considerations sub-section is not one that would normally appear in a journal article (any relevant ethical considerations would usually be mentioned in the Participants or Procedure sub-sections of the Method), but as part of your training, we require you to write it separately to assess your understanding.
● You must include an Ethical Considerations sub-section in any psychological empirical research report (including your final project).

—–

Information to participants

——

1.3 Please outline the design and methodology of your study and details of any invasive or intrusive procedures (400 words)
The study will have two hypotheses 1) wellbeing would be affected by which year they were in, and the 2) well-being scores will be lower in participants that have less awareness about the mental health services available at university, compared to students who do know about the available services. The dependent variables will be the following 1), Well-being scores using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS), 2) Anxiety/Stress scores from using the Perceived stress scale and 3) Well-being facility knowledge score – Questionnaire about students knowledge of wellbeing facilities available in institution. The independent variable is Year group and has 4 Levels. Measure 1 is first year students, measure 2 is Second Year students, measure 3 is 3rd year students and measure 4 is masters and PhD students.

The study design is a correlational design that will explore the relationship between wellbeing status and knowledge of wellbeing services. Secondary analysis will also look at between subjects differences in wellbeing to establish how this changes across the years.

Participants will be asked to fill out 3 questionnaires (2 scales and 1 survey) within Qualtrics. Questionnaire 1) is The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) Scale (14 item scale) , 2) The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and (10 item scale) 3) Well-being facilities knowledge. The WEMWBS is made of 14 positively worded items for assessing the mental wellbeing of the young adult population. The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), is a short scale which is a measure of the degree to which situations in one’s life are appraised as stressful. And the well-being facilities knowledge survey will look at students’ knowledge of well-being services. The survey should only take 15 minutes to complete.

A minimum of at least 28 participants is needed as this is a sample size used in previous studies (O’Connor, Cowdell & Watson, 2017) and the study may have practical constraints due to time available to collect results.

——————–
The study will have two hypotheses 1) wellbeing would be affected by which year they were in, and the 2) well-being scores will be lower in participants that have less awareness about the mental health services available at university, compared to students who do know about the available services.

Essay Mill