PSYC3020

TOPIC 1 (hardest option; but easier to gain marks for independent thinking and more
likely to be engaging from your perspective): Design and validate a new psychological
behavioural test or new battery of tests for differentiating people in the domain of your
choice.
If you construct your own assignment topic, you must obtain written approval for it from
your tutor. Although you are welcome to discuss your ideas with your tutor in person, the final
topic must be requested and approved via email (to ensure it is documented). If you choose this
option, it is your responsibility to ensure that your suggested topic is of an appropriate scope for
the required word length. You cannot choose a topic that is covered by one of the example
assignments. You also cannot write an assignment on testing the effects of concussion because
this topic is being used in a tutorial activity.
Narrowing a suggested topic
Even if you choose a suggested topic, you may find that you wish to narrow it to make the
scope of your assignment more manageable, given the word limit. If you simply wish to
narrow a topic, you do not need your tutor’s approval. However, it is your responsibility to
ensure that the narrowed version of the topic is of an appropriate scope for the required word
length.
Special considerations for Topic 1
Your research proposal tests any skill/ ability/ trait in an applied setting of your choice if you
choose to write this topic. However, keep in mind that your new test/ battery of tests needs to
constitute a psychological behavioural measure. You are required to seek your tutor’s approval
for a Topic 1 research proposal. You are strongly advised to contact your tutor early because
approval can be a drawn-out process (note: check if your tutor has a deadline for Topic 1
approvals). The process of seeking topic approval may be conducted via email, verbal
communication or a combination of both, depending on your tutor. However, final topic approval
from your tutor must be given in writing via email. It is advisable for you to chat with your tutor
about your proposal idea before seeking approval. You will need to address the following
questions/ points to obtain approval for your proposal idea:
1. Define/ operationalise what skill/ ability/ trait the proposed test measures (e.g., post-
concussion cognitive ability; clinical skills; driving ability). Identify up to 3-4 tests/
underlying variables that are used to measure this skill/ ability/ trait. Word count limits the
number of tests/ underlying variables you include in the proposal.
2. State how the proposed test is novel. Does it address problems of existing tests? Does it
apply an existing test to a new population? Is it brand new? Why should the proposed
test be funded?
3. Provide a rough description of the form of the proposed test.
4. How will two reliability and two validity strategies be used to evaluate the proposed test?
Depending on your proposal idea, your tutor may also follow up with additional questions that
are related to the points provided below [refer to Section 3 and the Appendix of the briefing for
more details]:
5. Why is it important to measure your chosen variable(s)? What is the rationale?
Remember, it needs to be of real benefit to society.
6. Who is your population of interest? Industry? Age?
7. How will your variable(s) be measured? Self-report? Behavioural observation? How will
the test be administered? How is it scored? HOW does WHO do WHAT, WHEN and
WHY? Refer to the Assignment Primer 2 – Concussion Activity tutorial for inspiration.
8. What practical and/ or ethical considerations of your proposed test are important? How
are they addressed?
9. Is a dependent/ outcome variable required? What about a contrast group?
Ideally, your answers to these questions should be concrete. Your tutor should have a clear
idea of how/ why the research proposal is important, how the test(s) will be measured, and how
the test(s) will be validated. Past experience has shown a positive relationship between detail
and performance: Clearer/ more concrete approvals are associated with research proposals
that have scored higher marks — probably because they are better reasoned through. Good
luck!

TOPIC 2 (hardest of the prescribed topics; least support): Design and validate a new test
or new battery of tests to select the best applicants for entry into a postgraduate training
program for clinical psychology.
There is little previous research into the entry selection for postgraduate clinical psychology
courses. However, one approach might be to review the literature on selection into other
postgraduate training programs in related areas (e.g., see Carr, 2009, below) to provide insight
into what could be done.
Background information references:
Fauber, R. L. (2006). Graduate admissions in clinical psychology: Observations on the present
and thoughts on the future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 13(3), 227-234.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2006.00029.x
Johnson, W. B., & Campbell, C. D. (2002). Character and fitness requirements for professional
psychologists: Are there any? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(1),
46-53. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.33.1.46
Johnson, W. B., & Campbell, C. D. (2004). Character and fitness requirements for professional
psychologists: Training directors' perspectives. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 35(4), 405-411. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.35.4.405
Other potentially interesting references:
Carr, S. E. (2009). Emotional intelligence in medical students: Does it correlate with selection
measures? Medical Education, 43(11), 1069-1077. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2923.2009.03496.x
Kelly, E. L., Goldberg, L. R., Fiske, D. W., & Kilkowski, J. M. (1978). Twenty-five years later: A
follow-up of the graduate students in clinical psychology assessed in the VA Selection
Research Project. American Psychologist, 33(8), 745-755. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.33.8.746
Pope-Davis, D. B., Reynolds, A. L., Dings, J. G., & Nielson, D. (1995). Examining multicultural
counseling competencies of graduate students in psychology. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 26(3), 322-329. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.26.3.322
Rem, R. J., Oren, E. M., & Childrey, G. (1987). Selection of graduate students in clinical
psychology: Use of cutoff scores and interviews. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 18(5), 485-488. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.18.5.485

TOPIC 3: Design and validate a new test or new battery of tests to assess the
competence of radiologists when screening (i.e., interpreting) mammograms for
tumours.
Download and read the background information references below to gain an understanding of
what is known about the expertise required to detect tumours in mammograms. Consider (1)
what measures previous researchers have found to predict performance in this skill, and (2)
what methods/ tests researchers have used to measure performance in the past. One option
might be to develop a new simulation test where participants view lots of example
mammograms and have to indicate whether a tumour is present or not. One way to assess the
validity of such a measure might be to compare novice radiologists with expert radiologists (i.e.,
a group you would expect to be bad at detecting tumours vs. a group you would expect to be
good at detecting tumours). If your new test could tell these groups apart (i.e., experts score
significantly higher than novices), then this could be considered evidence for its validity.
In some of the suggested references below, you may find yourself unfamiliar with some of the
performance analyses and terms. For example, many of the articles talk about ‘sensitivity’,
‘specificity’ and Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves. Don't worry about these. We do
not expect you to understand these concepts, nor use them in your test design (these issues
will be covered toward the end of this course). The articles provided should still give you a start
with the background literature, as well as ideas for methodology.
If you wish to discuss or measure performance in detecting objects in images, a good
alternative to using unfamiliar terms/ methods such as sensitivity, specificity, and ROC curves is
instead to talk about false alarm and correct detection rates to measure performance in this
domain. This is essentially the sources from which sensitivity, specificity, and ROC curves are
derived anyway. Using this alternative approach is perfectly acceptable to achieve a high Grade
7.
Background information references:
Barlow, W. E., Chi, C., Carney, P. A., Taplin, S. H., D'Orsi, C., Cutter, G., Hendrick, R. E., &
Elmore, J. G. (2004). Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by
characteristics of radiologists. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 96(24), 1840-
1850. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh333
Beam, C. A., Layde, P. M., & Sullivan, D. C. (1996). Variability in the interpretation of screening
mammograms by US radiologists: Findings from a national sample. Archives of Internal
Medicine, 156(2), 209-213. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1996.00440020119016
Elmore, J. G., Jackson, S. L., Abraham, L., Miglioretti, D. L., Carney, P. A., Geller, B. M.,
Yankaskas, B. C., Kerlikowske, K., Onega, T., Rosenberg, R. D., Sickles, E. A., & Buist,
D. S. M. (2009). Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and
radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy. Radiology, 253(3), 641-651.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2533082308
Nodine, C. F., Kundel, H. L., Lauver, S. C., & Toto, L. C. (1996). Nature of expertise in
searching mammograms for breast masses. Academic Radiology, 3(12), 1000-1006.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(96)80032-8
Other potentially interesting references:
Carney, P. A., Sickles, E. A., Monsees, B. S., Bassett, L. W., Brenner, R. J., Feig, S. A., Smith,
R. A., Rosenberg, R. D., Bogart, T. A., Browning, S., Barry, J. W., Kelly, M. M., Tran, K.
A., & Miglioretti, D. L. (2010). Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance
criteria for screening mammography. Radiology, 255(2), 354-361.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091636
Elmore, J. G., Wells, C. K., Lee, C. H., Howard, D. H., & Feinstein, A. R. (1994). Variability in
radiologists interpretations of mammograms. New England Journal of Medicine, 331(22),
1493-1499. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199412013312206
Goddard, C. C., Gilbert, R. J., Needham, G., & Deans, H. E. (1998). Routine receiver operating
characteristic analysis in mammography as a measure of radiologists' performance.
British Journal of Radiology, 71(850), 1012-1017.
https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.71.850.10211059
Miglioretti, D. L., Gard, C. C., Carney, P. A., Onega, T. L., Buist, D. S. M., Sickles, E. A.,
Kerlikowske, K., Rosenberg, R. D., Yankaskas, B. C., Geller, B. M., & Elmore, J. G.
(2009). When radiologists perform best: The learning curve in screening mammogram
interpretation. Radiology, 253(3), 632-640. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2533090070

TOPIC 4 (easiest; most support): Design and validate a new test or new battery of tests to
assess whether older drivers are safe to continue to drive. (You may want to narrow the
scope of this topic to a specific context e.g., a new test that is suitable for a busy
doctor’s surgery or for a Queensland Transport office.)
The first thing you should do is download and read the hazard perception assignment written
by Mark Horswill about hazard perception in driving – which is available on the PSYC3020
Blackboard website under Assessments → Assignment Materials (“Topic 4 – Hazard
Perception Assignment written by Mark”). Note that this assignment does NOT meet all the
current requirements for the PSYC3020 assignment (e.g., it doesn’t use the Assignment
Template) – so don’t replicate these aspects of it or you’ll fail! Instead, pay attention to the type
of arguments posed and rationale made as to why this new test should exist and thus be
funded. In particular, look at how the new test seeks to address the key limitations of the
existing measures.
Then search for and read the background information article cited below (i.e., Morgan & King,
1995). Consider all the measures that – according to the empirical research evidence – appear
to be able to predict older driver performance. Perhaps you could propose a new test battery
which included some of the measures found to be most predictive of older driver performance?
Or maybe you could propose some sort of driving simulator measure in which older drivers had
to demonstrate a competent ability level to cope with relevant challenging situations, especially
those driving situations/ scenarios known to be particularly problematic for elderly drivers?
Read the articles given below to gain ideas of the sort of reliability and validity studies that could
be proposed and how to describe them (e.g., Horswill, 2016a, 2017; Wetton et al., 2011). To
give one example, you could examine the correlation between your new test or new test battery
and crash records on a sample of older drivers as one way of establishing validity. This could
mean proposing a study where you tested a few hundred older drivers using your measure and
then found out how many accidents in which they had been involved over the previous few
years (e.g., Horswill et al., 2015). Another option might be to examine if test scores could predict
risky on-road behaviour (see Hill et al., 2019).
Don’t forget to consider the practicalities of your test. For example, developing a measure that
requires use of a computer mouse or technology that calls for its users to react in a way not
typical of driving responses, or even reading small text, might be a problem for this age group.
These types of factors need to be kept in mind when developing your new test or new test
battery.
Background information references:
Hill, A., Horswill, M. S., Whiting, J., & Watson, M. O. (2019). Computer-based hazard perception
test scores are associated with the frequency of heavy braking in everyday driving.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 122, 207-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.08.030
Horswill, M. S. (2016a). Hazard perception in driving. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 25(6), 425-430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416663186
Horswill, M. S. (2017). Hazard perception tests. In D. L. Fisher, J. K. Caird, W. J. Horrey & L. M.
Trick (Eds.), Handbook of Teen and Novice Drivers: Research, Practice, Policy, and
Directions (pp. 439-450). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315374123
Horswill, M. S., Anstey, K. J., Hatherly, C. G., & Wood, J. (2010). The crash involvement of
older drivers is associated with their hazard perception latencies. Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society, 16(5), 939-944.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S135561771000055X
Horswill, M. S., Hill, A., & Wetton, M. (2015). Can a video-based hazard perception test used for
driver licensing predict crash involvement? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 82, 213-219.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.05.019
Morgan, R., & King, D. (1995). The older driver - A review. Postgraduate Medical Journal,
71(839), 525-528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.71.839.525
Wetton, M. A., Hill, A., & Horswill, M. S. (2011). The development and validation of a hazard
perception test for use in driver licensing. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(5), 1759-
1770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.007
Wetton, M. A., Horswill, M. S., Hatherly, C., Wood, J. M., Pachana, N. A., & Anstey, K. J.
(2010). The development and validation of two complementary measures of drivers'
hazard perception ability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(4), 1232-1239.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.01.017
Other potentially interesting references:
George, S., Clark, M., & Crotty, M. (2008). Validation of the Visual Recognition Slide Test with
stroke: A component of the New South Wales occupational therapy off-road driver
rehabilitation program. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 55(3), 172-179.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2007.00699.x
Horswill, M. S., Anstey, K. J., Hatherly, C. G., & Wood, J. M. (2010). The crash involvement of
older drivers is associated with their hazard perception latencies. Journal of the
International Neuropsychological Society, 16(5), 939-944.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S135561771000055X
Mallon, K., & Wood, J. M. (2004). Occupational therapy assessment of open-road driving
performance: Validity of directed and self-directed navigational instructional components.
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58(3), 279-286.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.58.3.279
O'Connor, M. G., Kapust, L. R., & Hollis, A. M. (2008). DriveWise: An interdisciplinary hospital-
based driving assessment program. Gerontology and Geriatrics Education, 29(4), 351-
362. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960802497894
Unsworth, C. A., Pallant, J. F., Russell, K. J., Germano, C., & Odell, M. (2010). Validation of a
test of road law and road craft knowledge with older or functionally impaired drivers.
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64(2), 306-315.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.64.2.306