The Science Behind Clinical Research and Correlational Methods

UPI Study › Courses › Abnormal Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 2.1 Free with a free account

The Science Behind Clinical Research and Correlational Methods

Abnormal Psychology · Chapter 2: Investigating Mental Health: Research FoundationsSection 2.1 · lesson 6 of 9715 min · free with a free account

← Mind-Body Connections: How Psychology Shapes Physical ConditionsNext lesson: The Purpose and Function of Control Groups →

Earn 3 college credits for Abnormal PsychologyRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Psychology 180 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access
Enroll in Abnormal Psychology · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

What each method can establish, and the two doors a correlation always leaves open.

  • State what each clinical research method can and cannot establish
  • Interpret a correlation coefficient's direction and magnitude
  • Name the specific alternatives a correlation leaves open
  • Separate prevalence, incidence, and risk factor correctly

Transcript

Everything said in the video, section by section (2,182 words). Read along, or search it.

Investigating Mental Health: Research Foundations

Clinical Research and Correlational Methods

Most of what you will read about mental health rests on research you did not see. This section is about reading that research honestly. We work through the methods available, and what each one can actually establish. Every one of them has a limitation, and no method escapes having one. Then the workhorse of the field, which is correlation. You will learn to read a coefficient in two pieces. Direction, and magnitude. And you will learn what it never tells you, which is cause. Two specific alternatives stay open on every correlation ever computed. We name both of them, and see which designs close which door. Then we take a headline apart in five steps, and see what survives.

Before You Begin

Every Study Here Is a Hypothetical

Two notes before we begin. This material is educational, and not a basis for diagnosing anyone. And every number, study, and person described here is a hypothetical. Constructed for instruction. No real study or researcher is described anywhere. One point of vocabulary. People who take part in research are called participants. That word is used throughout the course, and it is not accidental. Here is what you are actually learning in this section. Not a list of methods to memorize. A habit. Ask what the design was, before asking what the finding was. And remember that a large sample does not upgrade a weak design.

The Question

From a Broad Question to a Testable Hypothesis

Clinical research begins with a question about a pattern someone noticed. Does therapy help? That is not a researchable question. It does not say which therapy, helping whom, with what, or measured how. So the question has to be converted into a hypothesis. A specific statement about a relationship between observable things, stated in advance. And capable of turning out false. That last clause is the whole of it. A hypothesis that no possible observation could contradict is not a strong claim, but an empty one. Three requirements make a hypothesis testable. It must be specific. It must be operationalized, with each term defined by how it will be measured. So improvement becomes a stated reduction, on a named scale, over a stated period. And it must be falsifiable, meaning some result would count against it. Compare two statements. Unresolved conflict causes difficulty. And where no conflict is apparent, the conflict is hidden. That cannot fail, so it cannot be tested. Now compare it with a stated reduction in reported anxiety, over twelve weeks. That one can fail, and is therefore worth investigating.

The Case Study

Depth Without Generalization

A case study is a detailed description of a single person. Or a very small number of people, usually assembled by a clinician over years. It is the oldest method in the field, and much early theory was built from it. It supplies depth that no other method reaches. The sequence in which difficulties developed. The person's own account of them. The interaction between symptoms and circumstances, and detail no rating scale captures. It is the only practical way to study a very rare presentation. And it generates hypotheses that other designs can then go and test. A single well-documented case is enough to disprove a universal claim. If a theory says a condition never occurs without a particular history, one counterexample settles it. What a case study cannot do is generalize. It describes one person, and nothing in the case tells you whether that person is typical. The clinician who conducts the treatment usually writes the account, with no independent check. There is no comparison, so nothing establishes the person would not have changed anyway. And cases get published because they are striking, which biases the published record.

Observation

Real Behavior, or Comparable Behavior

Naturalistic observation is the systematic recording of behavior in its ordinary setting. On a ward, in a classroom, in a family home. The researcher does not intervene. Structured observation records behavior in a setting the researcher has arranged. So that everyone is observed under the same conditions. The trade-off between them is direct, and neither wins. Naturalistic observation captures what people actually do. But conditions vary between participants, and the events of interest may not occur. Structured observation makes participants comparable, and guarantees the situation arises. The cost is removing the ordinary context, which may have been doing much of the work. Both face one standing threat, and it has a name. Reactivity. Reactivity is the change in behavior produced by the fact of being observed. People being watched behave differently, usually in the direction they believe is expected. It cannot be eliminated. It can only be reduced. Allow a habituation period before recording begins. Use unobtrusive recording, where that is ethically acceptable and consented to. And use several trained observers who agree in advance on what counts as an instance.

Self-Report

Indispensable, and Not a Transparent Window

Much of what clinical research needs to know is available only from the person. Self-report is any method where the participant supplies information about themselves. A clinical interview, a rating scale, or a written questionnaire. Self-report is indispensable, and it is not a transparent window. Three specific limits recur, and each has a different shape. Social desirability is the tendency to answer in the way that presents you favorably. It is the ordinary pull of wanting to be seen well, including by oneself. Recall bias is systematic inaccuracy in remembering. Systematic, rather than random, which is exactly what makes it dangerous. A participant asked about the past year while feeling low recalls a different year. Insight limits are the boundaries of what a person can observe about themselves. The effect of your behavior on others. The reasons behind a choice. Some things are simply not available to introspection, by anyone. The remedies are partial. Anchor questions to specific recent periods. Ask about concrete behavior rather than summary judgments, and collect collateral information.

Side By Side

Every Method Has a Final Column

It helps to lay the methods side by side, and read the last column first. The case study answers what can happen, and in what detail. Its strength is unmatched depth. It cannot establish how common or what caused it. Naturalistic observation answers what people do in ordinary settings. It records real behavior in real context, and it cannot establish cause. Structured observation answers what people do under identical conditions. Participants are comparable, but you do not learn whether the behavior occurs outside. Self-report answers what the person thinks, feels, and reports. It is the only access to internal experience, and its weakness is accuracy. The correlational design answers whether two things vary together, and how strongly. And it leaves both reverse causation and third variables open. Only the experiment answers whether changing this produces a change in that. Now read the final column down, and notice that no row is empty. Choosing a method is not choosing the good one over the bad ones. It is deciding which limitation you can live with, for the question you are asking.

The Coefficient

Two Pieces of Information, and One Blind Spot

A correlational design measures two or more things as they already are. It asks whether they vary together. Nothing is manipulated. Most of what the field wants to study cannot be assigned to people. The result is summarized by a correlation coefficient. A single number between minus one and plus one. It describes how closely two measurements track each other in a straight line. Direction is the sign. Positive means the two rise together. Negative means one rises as the other falls. The sign says nothing about whether the relationship is good or bad. Magnitude is the distance from zero, ignoring the sign entirely. As a rough reading, around one tenth is weak and around three tenths is moderate. Around a half or beyond is strong, for psychological data. Those are conventions, not thresholds found anywhere in nature. Minus zero point six and plus zero point six are equally strong. A negative coefficient is not a weak one. Sign and strength are separate information. And now the blind spot. A coefficient near zero does not mean the two are unrelated. It means they are not related in a straight line. A strong curved relationship can produce a coefficient of almost exactly zero. Too little and too much of something are often both associated with poorer outcomes. So the rule is short. Always look at the scatterplot, never only at the number.

Two Open Doors

Third Variables and Reverse Causation

Take a hypothetical study of four thousand adults, constructed for instruction. It reports that hours of social media use and reported low mood are positively associated. At a coefficient of plus zero point three one. Two alternatives stay wide open, and neither closes by collecting more of the same data. The first is the third-variable problem. So the association between them is real, and is not a relationship between them at all. Disrupted sleep is a good candidate here. It plausibly increases both night-time social media use and low mood. It would produce exactly the observed association, even if neither variable affected the other. Social isolation, unemployment, and age would each do the same job. It is a permanent feature of correlational data, because there is always another candidate. The second alternative is reverse causation. The causal arrow may simply run the other way. Low mood may lead people to spend longer on social media. Withdrawing from face-to-face contact, seeking distraction, or being awake at night. That account fits the same coefficient exactly as well as the first one does. Drawing those three is the fastest way to see what a headline has assumed.

Time

What a Longitudinal Design Buys, and What It Does Not

Time changes what a design can support, so compare two ways of using it. A cross-sectional design measures different participants at a single point in time. Comparing groups of different ages assessed in the same month, for example. A longitudinal design follows the same participants over an extended period. Longitudinal designs buy exactly one thing, and it is worth having. Temporal order. Knowledge of which variable changed first. That closes one of the two doors we just opened. If low mood was already elevated before social media use rose, reverse causation is out. But temporal order does not settle the third variable. Disrupted sleep can produce low mood first, and increased use second. A longitudinal correlational study is still a correlational study. Cross-sectional designs are faster and cheaper, and carry their own trap. A cohort effect is a difference between age groups arising from when they were born. Rather than from how old they are. Suppose seventy-year-olds report less psychological difficulty than twenty-five-year-olds. That may reflect aging. Or a generation raised to regard such difficulties as private. The design cannot distinguish those two, and longitudinal work pays for avoiding it.

Counting Words

Five Terms That Are Routinely Confused

Five terms recur whenever the course says how common something is. Prevalence is the proportion of a population who have a condition at a specified time. Point prevalence refers to a single moment. Period prevalence refers to a stated window, such as twelve months. Lifetime prevalence is the proportion who have had it at any point so far. It is always higher than point prevalence, and it depends on recall. Which means it inherits the recall bias we described earlier. Incidence is the number of new cases arising over a stated period. Prevalence counts everyone who has it. Incidence counts only the arrivals. That distinction has teeth. A long-lasting condition has high prevalence. It may also have low incidence, and confusing the two gets you badly wrong. A risk factor is a characteristic associated with increased likelihood of a condition. It is a correlational concept, and it does not establish cause. A protective factor is a characteristic associated with reduced likelihood. Same caution applies. And it is not simply the absence of a risk factor.

A Headline Examined

Five Steps, and What Survives Them

Now put it all together on one headline, which is a composite describing no real study. People who eat breakfast are less anxious. New research shows skipping breakfast raises anxiety. The underlying finding is a described questionnaire study of six thousand two hundred adults. Participants who reported eating breakfast on most days scored lower on an anxiety scale. The coefficient was minus zero point one nine. Step one. What does the design license? Nothing was manipulated. This is cross-sectional and correlational, so the two are associated in this sample. Step two. Magnitude. At minus zero point one nine, the relationship is weak. Knowing whether a participant eats breakfast tells you very little about their anxiety. Step three. Reverse causation. Anxiety commonly affects appetite, sleep, and morning routine. So more anxious participants may simply be less likely to eat breakfast. Step four. Third variables. Shift work disrupts both eating and sleep. Financial hardship is associated with both food insecurity and anxiety. And a broader pattern of regular routine would produce it, with breakfast as one marker. Step five. Measurement. Both variables are self-reported. Social desirability pushes reports of breakfast up, and recall bias affects the rest. In this sample, self-reported breakfast and self-reported anxiety were weakly associated. Notice what has not happened here. The finding was not shown to be wrong. And the study was not shown to be bad. The design is appropriate for this question. Breakfast cannot be assigned to people for years. What was wrong is one word in the headline. Raises. It asserts a direction that the design cannot supply.

About Abnormal Psychology at UPI Study

Abnormal Psychology (Psychology 180) is a self-paced online course of 97 video lessons in 25 chapters, from the main theoretical perspectives and clinical assessment to anxiety, mood, psychotic and personality disorders, treatment and the law. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.

Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →

Why take it here

Why students take Abnormal Psychology with UPI Study

Understand mental health disordersAbnormal Psychology covers how psychological disorders are defined, assessed, explained and treated. It is a core course for psychology majors and useful for nursing, social work, counseling and criminal justice.
Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.
Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.
Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.
Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.
130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Abnormal Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Thomas Edison State UniversityThomas Edison State UniversitySigned partnerUniversity of the PeopleUniversity of the PeopleSigned partnerCharter Oak State CollegeCharter Oak State CollegeSigned partnerStrayer UniversityStrayer UniversitySigned partnerColumbia Southern UniversityColumbia Southern UniversitySigned partnerIndiana TechIndiana TechSigned partnerPenn StatePenn StateWorks with NCCRSSouthern New Hampshire UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRSSUNYSUNYWorks with NCCRS +many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →

Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.

FAQ

Questions students ask us

About The Science Behind Clinical Research and Correlational Methods

What does the sign and size of a correlation coefficient tell you?
A correlation coefficient ranges from minus one to plus one. Its sign gives direction: positive means two variables rise together, negative means one rises as the other falls. Its distance from zero gives strength, so minus 0.6 and plus 0.6 are equally strong. By rough convention, about 0.1 is weak, about 0.3 moderate, and about 0.5 or more strong for psychological data. The sign says nothing about whether a relationship is good or bad.
Why does correlation not imply causation?
A correlation shows only that two variables vary together, leaving two alternatives open. A third variable may cause both, as disrupted sleep might raise both late-night social media use and low mood. Reverse causation may also apply, with the effect actually producing the supposed cause. Longitudinal designs can establish which variable changed first, but only an experiment that manipulates a variable can directly test whether changing it produces a change.
What is the difference between prevalence and incidence?
Prevalence is the proportion of a population who have a condition at a specified time, while incidence is the number of new cases arising over a stated period. Prevalence counts everyone who has the condition, and incidence counts only new arrivals. A long-lasting condition can have high prevalence but low incidence. Point prevalence refers to one moment, period prevalence to a window such as twelve months, and lifetime prevalence to any point so far.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of a case study in psychology?
A case study offers rich depth on a single person or a few people, capturing how difficulties developed and detail no rating scale reaches. It is a practical way to study rare presentations, generate hypotheses, and disprove universal claims with one counterexample. Its weaknesses are that it cannot generalize, often lacks an independent check, has no comparison group, and published cases tend to be the most striking ones.

About the Abnormal Psychology course

How many college credits is Abnormal Psychology?
Abnormal Psychology (Psychology 180) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
How much does Abnormal Psychology cost and what is included?
$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 97 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. Students who want several courses choose UPI Study PRO instead.
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.
How long does Abnormal Psychology take?
It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 97 lessons total about 24 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.
How are the exams done?
Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.
How do my credits reach my college?
When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Abnormal Psychology.

97 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Abnormal Psychology →Download the syllabusEvery course with PRO →
Abnormal Psychology
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →