Validity of Schulz Study on Control and Predictability in Aging - Essay Example

Validity of Schulz (1976) Study on Control and Predictability in Aging Schulz (1971) studied aging individuals in a single nursing home to assess the degree to which predictability and control over positive events had positive outcomes in terms of psychiatric and physical health compared to those who either did not receive such positive events or those who received them only on a random schedule. The purpose of this study was to determine, to the highest degree possible, whether predictability and control had a causal relationship with health outcomes in the studied population. The methods used were rather simple. A group of aging adults from a single nursing institution were invited to participate in a study about the daily lives of aging people. As part of this, they were offered pre-test questionnaires, which were either filled out by themselves or by an interviewer, depending on the participant’s degree of ability. They were then suggested to have visits from members of an undergraduate class (supposedly unrelated to the study) simply because they were people working on aging who wanted more real “firsthand experience.” Those who accepted were divided into four groups: those that did not receive visits, those that received visits randomly, those that received visits at a time and for a duration that they were informed of but could not control, and for a time and duration that they could control. The researcher’s assertion is that the study he conducted indicates that there is a significant causal link between having increased control and predictability in institutionalized care and better outcomes in terms of mental and physical help. At first glance, the study methodology provided a relatively robust set of controls and should have been a valid study. There were enough controls, for instance, both a random visitation group and a not visited group, to help the researchers determine the degree of the visits themselves rather than the control or predictability of those events. The questionnaires used had been developed and executed in other settings. The participants were not informed about the subject of the test, preventing them from behaving differently in order to meet testing criteria. The visit lengths of the random and predictable visit groups were yoked to those of the control group in order to ensure that there was not a variation based solely on the amount of time spent, but rather that the amount of control was the sole determining factor. A closer examination, however, shows that there were many ways in which the criteria fail to meet the standards of validity set by Trochim, for example. The first of these is the fundamental question of the relationship between the test that is actually being conducted, and the construct that is being tested for. The fact is that control over visits is not at all able to be generalized to control or predict other aspects of life. Furthermore, there are serious issues with the lack of differentiation between control and predictability in the study. Though Shulz certainly sees that this is an issue, and writes as much in his conclusion (1971), the fact is having two variables examined and not being able to differentiate between them causes methodological difficulties. This also calls into question the structure of the test itself. Life in institutionalized care is nothing if not predictable. Meal times occur at the same time; there are schedules for getting up, for having one’s pills brought to one, and so on. Yet people who are living this already incredibly predictable lifestyle did not seem to have the same benefits as people who were able to control visits from young students. Why would this be so different? The only explanation is that there is a control missing, some kind of confounding variable. The study was not able to differentiate in its results between control and prediction in any perceptible way in this study, yet uses that to assert that they are both good things that need to be augmented in older people’s lives generally. This begs the question, however, of where the unpredictability in unvisited people’s lives was. It is, thus, impossible to say that predictability is universally a positive thing in aging people’s lives and that it is equal to control. Perhaps a better experimental design could have solved this – something like having a favorite meal prepared once a week, but either on a random, predictable, or chosen schedule. Finally this study had serious issues in terms of population size. Each group was only ten subjects strong, and for a quantitative analysis of this sort that is a relatively small group. Though Schulz subjected these results to statistical analysis such as P tests to determine validity, there is still a significant danger to random population differences in groups of this size. Furthermore, the close relationship among people in the study could have been an issue – people with random visitations, for instance, might have felt jilted because they knew other people were getting visitations on a schedule that they preferred. Finally, there is a whole realm of interpersonal issues with the notion of controlling another human being that went unaddressed in this study. Controlling another human being’s time is subject to significant societal codes that elders may feel unwilling to break, or could come with senses of control that are absent in many other populations. On a close examination, this study’s validity was somewhat questionable. The one thing that it did seem to prove beyond much of a doubt was the fact that predictable visitation by young people to a nursing home improves the lives of those in the home – something that few would probably question. To generalize this to notions of control and predictability, however, would be a dangerous mistake. There is a good chance that control and predictability might be positive things in this one circumstance but very negative in other – always having pasta on Monday, for instance, might have led to a sense of grinding hopelessness, regardless of the actual value of the pasta. Works Cited Schulz, R. (1976). Effects of control and predictability on the physical and psychological well-being of the institutionalized aged. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 33(5). Trochim. (2006). Introduction to validity. Drawing on validity typology and validity threats. Cambridge: Harvard UP. Read More