五年專注昆士蘭代寫essay 信譽保證
turnitin檢測 保證原創率 高分通過


Order Now


    How reliable and valid are these two independent instruments?
    In further validating outcome measures and making grips with the control of possible confounds as well as inducing less methodological flaws to recruit more culturally diverse respondents, the Negative Life Events instrument (NLE) and the Wide Range Achievement Test-IV (WRAT) are of particular interest in effecting desired changes when engaging in statistical analyses of relevance for the reason that the degree of a test to which measurements or observed data are a veracious representation of research reality presented in a socially appropriate manner [validity] and the extent of having no measurement fluctuations across time or context for a test to maintain consistency or stability [reliability] are, properly demonstrated by two aforementioned instruments. Data analysis can be regarded as both reliable and valid if instruments used faithfully employed various types of their scaled subsets and variables to measure whatever it claims to measure while producing the claimed results with little or no random errors to truthfully reflect how children are influenced by different environmental factors that are perennially concurrent with any prolonged exposures of violent video games in terms of their aggressiveness or visuo-spatial task performance. It could be further argued both two instruments scaled their measurements in conjunction with specific individual differences presented in the data analysis to take into account facets of different kinds that might be associated with how one would readily define factors influencing the way one is perceived as a violent person via NLE or consider the exactitude of being assisted with violence-induced academic enhancement in any mathematical test performance by virtue of using WRAT.
    Discussion insights: strengths and weaknesses
    Being overwhelmed with the bombardment of various social media has led people into being subjected to confirmation bias or preconceived stagnation. Still, three significant points were arisen by Ferguson et al (2012) to reinstate the contribution adding to the entire body of knowledge. First, the authors suggested that the orthodox belief where people are merely passive recipients of whatever they being spoon-fed by social media should be utterly superseded with a more in-depth understanding of humans’ ability to actively seek interest and pursue pleasant entertainments based on motivational values. Second, it was noticed that previous categorization on the definitional meaning of violent games is less than accurate because there are other non-violent bonafide-promoting elements being ignored present in those then-violent games, rendering the “games=harmful” equation somewhat erroneous. Third, shielding from the detriment of cognitive automaticity presumed in previous social media researches, one is made aware that the distinction of fictional media from non-fictional ones was broadly overlooked with regard to the obvious mistaken magnitude of violent games’ influence on how one tellingly engages with different societal undertakings that past researches failed to identify. Therefore the present study was quite praiseworthy in its robust use of remediating measurements to help correct methodological drawbacks from past literatures by employing well-validated outcome measures and utilizing non-Anglocentric demographic participatory data. Likewise, this can also be interpreted as a weakness since the homogeneity of Hispanic majority participants can in a way be prone to collecting data from a response set. Nevertheless, present researchers should pride themselves in successfully contradicting the supposedly widespread belief that children are more vulnerable to fall victim of violent contents than their cohorts in other developmental stages by realizing they are actually active agents towards innumerable environmental stimuli by virtue of their motivational flair rather than merely receiving everything that is inflicted upon. Future researchers can also know about little predictive values the current study held as it barely forecasted cognitive outcomes based on evaluations of various violent game engagement, civic behavior, visuo-spatial task and math performances.