Department of Business AdministrationMGT 211, Semester 2nd ,.docx

Department of Business Administration
MGT 211, Semester 2nd , 2017-18
Assignment : 1
Place of Submission: Students Grade Centre
Weight: 08 Marks
Learning Outcome:
1. Explain the role of human resources (HR) within the
organization.
2. Differentiate between the major functions of HR and describe
their interdependency.
Assignment Workload:
This assignment is an individual assignment.
The word count for this assignment must be between 1000 to
1500 words.
Case Study
HLL is a reputed multinational company. It considers selection
as an event in the total process of acquiring and developing
managers. The company believes that the selection process must
be consistent with other events in the total process for it to be
effective. Hindustan lever has been one of the most favored
companies by the prospective candidates for managerial
position. The selection process of the company can be broken
into three steps: such as- Screening of application forms,
preliminary interview, and final selection.
Screening of Applications Forms:
In the first step the company usually receives a large number of

applications for the positions advertised or through campus
interview. Thereafter such applications are screened. Such
applications usually contain brief information about the
candidates. The selected candidates are then required to fill in a
detailed application form. This form is quite elaborate and seeks
factual information about the candidate and also about his
attitudes and personality. A more strict screening of
applications is made in this step. The company believes that to
select a candidate it will not be enough to see the application
forms only which may not be very reliable measure to select or
reject the candidate. This calls for a brief preliminary interview
to be held by company to get the best talents. So such
interviews are conducted to interview as many candidates as is
administratively possible.
Preliminary interview:
Preliminary interview is conducted for about ten to twenty
minutes usually by one manager. During this brief personal
contract, some time is spent in discussing the nature of the job,
the future career possibility of the applicant and the company’s
policy in this regard. Often a second interview is conducted
before the applicant is rejected or selected for further
consideration.
Final Selection:
Final selection process is quite elaborate. This stage consists of
two aspects-groups discussion and final interview. Group
discussion is conducted in two stages. In the first group
discussion, the chairman of the panel of selectors requests the
group to select a subject which can be economic, political,
social educational or even a lighter subject. The subject is
decided by the group itself out of the various topics given to it.
When the topic is finalized, the members of the group discuss it.
In the second group discussion, a case is given. The case is

distributed in advance. The evaluation of the group discussion
is done by a board consisting of the personnel director, the
director of the division in which the applicants have to be
absorbed, a senior manager of the same division, and a senior
manager of other division. The board evaluates the candidates
along the following factors: Style of self-introduction by the
candidate, his general knowledge and knowledge of his subject,
clarity of thought and logic, lucidity of expression, tolerance of
others views, persuasiveness and leadership qualities. Each
selector is given a blank sheet to evaluate the candidates. He
evaluates the candidates individually.
After the group discussion, personal interview is conducted by
the board. On the completion of the individual interviews, the
board members held discussion among themselves and then
arrive at a consensus.
Question:
1.
What type of selection should be adopted by the company?
2.
What is considered in time of screening the application forms?
3.
What is the basic objective of the preliminary interview?
4.
What should be the size of groups for final selection?
5.
Why is a case distributed in advance amongst the candidates in
final selection?
6.

What is the information on the basis of which the personal
interview is conducted?
Chapter 11: Single-Subject Experimental Research
Educational Research:
Competencies for Analysis and Application
11/E
Geoffrey Mills and Lorraine Gay
© 2016, 2012, 2009, 2006 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
Gay & Mills
Educational Research, 11e
© 2016 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
11-‹#›
After reading Chapter 11, you should be able to do the
following
Describe the major categories of single-subject experimental
designs, and explain the benefits and challenges of this type of
research.
Describe issues related to data analysis and interpretation in
single-subject experimental research.
Discuss threats to validity in single-subject experimental
research.
Describe the importance of replication in single-subject
experimental research.

Gay & Mills
11-‹#›
Single-Subject Experimental Designs
Single-subject (single-case experimental) designs are applied
when the sample size is one or when a number of individuals are
considered as one group.
These designs are used to study behavior change in response to
treatment.
Each participant serves as his or her own control.
Gay & Mills
11-‹#›
Each participant is exposed to both treatment and control phases
and is measured during each phase.
Single-subject designs are often used for research in special
education, communication science disorders, and clinical
psychology.
Applications of these designs, however, are appropriate to many
additional areas of research.
Single-variable rule
Only one variable at a time should be manipulated in single-
subject experimental designs
Gay & Mills

11-‹#›
Design representation in single-subject research.
The nontreatment phase is represented by A.
The treatment phase is represented by B.
For example, if we were to study the in-class swearing
behavior of Melissa, we could make several observations of her
in class, recording her swearing behavior, introduce an
intervention for several classes and observe her swearing
behavior, stop the intervention and observe her for several
classes. This would be represented as A-B-A.
Gay & Mills
11-‹#›
Single-Subject versus Group Designs
Often applied in clinical settings where the emphasis is
therapeutic impact.
When research results are intended to generalize to other
groups, single subject designs are not appropriate.
Sometimes, when it may not be ethical to conduct a group
design, a single-subject design is appropriate.
Single-subject designs are appropriate when the aim is to
improve functioning of an individual.
Gay & Mills
11-‹#›

Types of Single-Subject Designs
A-B-A withdrawal designs alter phases of baseline and
treatment.
There are a number of variations of A-B-A designs.
A-B designs
OOOO XOXOXOXO
Baseline Phase Treatment Phase
A B
Gay & Mills
11-‹#›
Additive designs: Variations of A-B design that involves the
additional phases
A-B-A Design
OOOO XOXOXOXO OOOO
Baseline Phase Treatment Phase Baseline Phase
A B A
Changing criterion design
Baseline is followed by successive treatment phases where in
each a more stringent criterion is required.
Gay & Mills
11-‹#›
A-B-A-B Design

OOOO XOXOXOXO OOOO XOXOXOXO
Baseline Treatment Baseline Treatment
A B A B
Gay & Mills
11-‹#›
Multiple-Baseline Designs
Multiple-baseline designs entail the systematic addition of
behaviors, subjects, or settings for intervention.
Multiple behaviors for one subject
One behavior for several subjects
One behavior and one subject for several settings
Multiple-baseline designs can often be used when it is not
ethical to remove a treatment or to reverse a treatment.
Gay & Mills
11-‹#›
Multiple-baseline design
Behavior 1 O O OXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO
Behavior 2 O O O O OXOXOXOXOXOXOXO
Behavior 3 O O O O O O OXOXOXOXOXO
Multiple-baseline designs can be combined with A-B-A designs

when one can return to baseline.
Gay & Mills
11-‹#›
Alternating treatments design: Includes the relatively rapid
alternation of treatments for a single subject. Treatments are
symbolized as T with subscripts (T1, T2). Treatments are
randomly applied.
Strengths:
No withdrawal is necessary for alternating treatments designs
No baseline phase is necessary because the goal is to compare
treatments against each other.
A number of treatments can be studied quickly and efficiently
A weakness, however, is carryover effects.
Gay & Mills
11-‹#›
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Data analysis in single-subject research is typically based on
visual inspection and analysis of a graphic representation of
results.
First, the researcher evaluates the adequacy of the design.
Second, if the design is deemed valid, the researcher assesses
treatment effectiveness.
Effectiveness is evaluated based upon clinical effectiveness not

statistical effectiveness.
Although available, inferential statistical procedures are not
often used in single-subject designs.
Gay & Mills
11-‹#›
Threats to Validity
Single-subject designs suffer from low external validity.
The effect of the baseline phase may pose an external validity
threat in single-subject designs.
Similar to the pretest-treatment interaction threat in group
designs.
Gay & Mills
11-‹#›
Threats to Validity
Single-subject studies, if executed properly, can have sound
internal validity.
Repeated and reliable measurement
Baseline is established in single-subject designs through
multiple observations.
This helps to control for maturation.
Data are also collected during the treatment phases in single-
subject designs.
This helps to control for history.

Gay & Mills
11-‹#›
Threats to Validity
Internal validity
Instrumentation is a threat to internal validity in single-subject
designs.
Observations should be standardized
Instruments must be reliable and valid
Intra-observer reliability and inter-observer reliability are
critical for effective single-subject studies.
Treatment should be explained in enough detail to permit
replication.
Gay & Mills
11-‹#›
Threats to Validity
Internal validity
Baseline stability
It is often difficult to know how many data points are necessary
for baseline. This is a critical decision in single-subject designs.
Minimum of three data points are required but more are often
necessary
Length of the treatment phase parallels baseline
Gay & Mills

11-‹#›
Replication
External validity in single-subject designs is established
through replication.
Direct: Replication by the same investigator in a specific setting
with the same or different participants.
Simultaneous: Replication with a number of participants with
the same problem at the same location and same time can
promote generalizability.
Systematic: Follows direct replication with different
investigators, behaviors, and settings.
Clinical: Involves the development of a treatment package of
two or more interventions found to be individually successful.
Gay & Mills
11-‹#›
Chapter 10:
Experimental Research
Educational Research:
Competencies for Analysis and Application
11/E
Geoffrey Mills and Lorraine Gay

© 2016, 2012, 2009, 2006 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
After reading Chapter 10, you should be able to do the
following:
Briefly define and state the purpose of experimental research.
Briefly explain the threats to validity in experimental research.
Define and provide examples of group experimental designs.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Definition and purpose
Experimental research is the only type of research that can test
hypotheses to establish cause-effect relations.
The researcher manipulates at least one independent variable
and controls other relevant variables, and observes the effect on
one or more dependent variables.
The researcher has control over selection and assignment.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›

In experimental research studies the independent variable is
also called the treatment, causal, or experimental variable.
In experimental research studies the dependent variable is also
called the criterion, effect, or posttest variable.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Experimental research is the most structured of all research.
When conducted well, experimental research studies produce
the soundest evidence for cause-effect relations.
Replicating an experiment involving different contexts and
participants often produces results than can be widely
generalized.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
The experimental process
The steps in the experimental research process are the same as
in other types of research.
Selecting and defining a problem
Selecting participants and measuring instruments
Preparing a research plan
Executing procedures

Analyzing the data
Formulating conclusions
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
In experimental studies, the researcher controls selection and
assignment.
Experimental studies often examine comparisons between or
among groups.
Comparison of two different approaches (A versus B)
Comparison of a new approach and the existing approach (A
versus no A)
Comparison of different amounts of a single approach (A little
of A versus a lot of A)
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
In experimental research studies the group that receives the
treatment is the experimental group.
The group that does not receive the treatment is called the

control group.
Sometimes groups are comparison groups that receive
alternative treatments (e.g., two types of instruction in a content
area).
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Experimental studies in educational settings often have two
problems:
A lack of sufficient exposure to treatments (i.e., treatments are
too short or diffuse).
Failure to make treatments significantly different from one
another (e.g., an experimental instructional program in math
may not be different enough from the comparison math
instructional program).
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Manipulation and control
In experimental studies, researchers directly manipulate
independent variables and control, or remove, the influence of
extraneous variables.
It is challenging to control all the relevant extraneous variables.
Participant variables
Organismic (e.g., age)

Environmental variables (e.g., school or teacher effects)
Concentrate on controlling variables that affect or interact with
the dependent variable.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Threats to Experimental Validity
Statistical conclusion validity
Statistical conclusion validity refers to appropriate use of
statistics to infer whether the the presumed independent and
dependent variables co-vary in the experiment..
Internal validity
Internal validity refers to the degree to which observed
differences in the dependent variable are a direct result of
manipulation of the independent variable and not some other
variable.
Internal validity is concerned with rival explanations for an
effect.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Construct validity
Construct validity refers to inferences about the variables or
constructs in a study.
External validity
External validity, also called ecological validity, refers to the

degree to which the results from a study are generalizable to
other groups.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Internal and external validity
When researchers increase the internal validity of their study,
they decrease their external validity.
When researchers are concerned with external validity, their
ability to control important extraneous variables suffers.
When there is a choice, researchers should err on the side of
control and maximize internal validity.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Threats to Internal Validity
History
Maturation
Testing
Instrumentation
Statistical regression
Differential selection of participants

Mortality
Selection-maturation and interaction effects
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
History
Any event occurring during a study that is not part of the
experimental treatment but that may effect the dependent
variable represents a history threat.
Longer-lasting studies are more prone to history threats.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
History threat example
In a study of the effects of instructional simulations in learning
chemistry content, a history threat would be demonstrated if
students in the study were exposed to simulations in a different
setting, such as when learning geography, while the study was
being conducted.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›

Maturation
Maturation refers to physical, intellectual, and emotional
changes that naturally occur within participants over a period of
time.
Maturation threat example
In studies of interventions that are designed to increase
children’s theory of mind, if the interventions lasted more than
a couple of weeks at critical time points, participants may gain
significant theory of mind awareness simply due to cognitive
development and not due to the treatment.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Testing
Testing as a threat to internal validity is demonstrated when
taking a pretest alters the result of a posttest.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Instrumentation
Instrumentation is a threat to internal validity when the
instrumentation is either unreliable or is changed between pre-

and posttesting.
Instrumentation threat example
A researcher collects data through observing the classroom.
Pretreatment observations adhere closely to the observation
protocol. However, at posttreatment, the observers deviate and
only record behavior supporting the hypotheses.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Statistical regression
Extremely high or low scores tend to regress to the mean on
retesting.
Statistical regression example
If students perform poorly on a pretest it is difficult to
determine if the gain in their scores is due to treatment effects.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Differential selection of participants
Participants in the control and experimental groups differ in
ways that influence the dependent measure.
Mortality
Mortality refers to attrition or a reduction in the number of
research participants over time as individuals drop out of a
study.
Do not assume attrition is random.

Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Selection-maturation interaction and other interactive effects
Participants selected into the treatment and control conditions
have different experiences or maturation rates
Selection-instrumentation occurs when instrumentation varies
across conditions.
Selection can interact with other threats to internal validity
(i.e., history, maturation, instrumentation).
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Threats to External Validity
External validity threats can be divided into two categories:
‘Generalizing to whom’ threats
Threats affecting groups to which the study can be generalized
‘Generalizing to what’ threats
Threats affecting the settings, conditions, variables, and
contexts to which the results can be generalized
Gay & Mills

10-‹#›
Pretest-treatment interaction
Multiple-treatment interference
Selection-treatment interaction
Specificity of variables
Treatment diffusion
Experimenter effects
Reactive arrangements
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Pretest-treatment interaction
This threat occurs when participants respond differently to a
treatment because they have been exposed to a pretest.
Pretest may alert participants.
Self-report measures are often susceptible to pretest-treatment
interaction effects.
At times, unobtrusive measures can be used as pretests, to limit
this threat to validity (e.g., using previously administered
standardized assessments to measure ability in science instead
of using a pretest).
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›

Multiple-treatment interference
This threat occurs when previous treatments cross-over into a
current experiment. This makes it challenging to determine the
effectiveness of the later treatment.
This threat may occur in studies that access participants who
have been exposed to other research studies (e.g., university
participant pools).
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Selection-treatment interaction
When a study’s findings only apply to the groups selected and
are not representative of other groups.
This may happen in non-randomly assigned studies where a
treatment is less or more effective for certain demographics
(e.g., ability levels).
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Specificity of variables
When researchers do not adequately define their variables,
instruments, or population, it makes it difficult to determine
how well the findings will generalize to an alternative
population.
Related threats

Interaction of history and treatment
Interaction of time of measurement and treatment effect
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Treatment diffusion
When different treatment groups communicate with and learn
from each other, the treatments are no longer distinctly
different. The treatments overlap.
For example, two classes are randomly assigned to a different
approach to math instruction. Students and teachers begin
talking and one treatment diffuses into the other.
To reduce treatment diffusion, instruct teachers to not discuss
the treatment until the study is completed.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Experimenter effects
Experimenter effects occur when characteristics or behaviors of
the experimenter influence the participants’ responses.
These might be personal attributes effects
Research expectations effects: Experimenter bias
These threats are also referred to as participant effects. These
threats are associated with differences in participants’ behavior,
feelings, and attitudes because they are in a study.

Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Hawthorne effect: Any situation in which participants’ behavior
is affected because they are in a study.
John Henry effect:(Compensatory rivalry): Members of the
control group compete with the experimental group.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Placebo effect: To combat compensatory rivalry, researchers
attempt to give control groups a placebo, not the experimental
treatment, but something to decrease the perception that they
are in the control group. Participants should perceive they are
all getting the same thing.
Novelty effect: When participants are engaged in something
different this may increase attention, interest, behavior,
learning, etc., just because it is something new.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›

Control of Extraneous Variables
The validity of an experiment is a function of the degree to
which extraneous variables are controlled.
Randomization is the best mechanism to control for extraneous
variables.
Randomization distinguishes experimental designs.
Randomization should be used whenever possible.
If groups cannot be randomly formed, variables should be held
constant when at all possible (e.g., time of day, which
researcher is present).
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Confound:
A situation in which the effects of the independent variable are
intertwined with extraneous variables and it is difficult to
determine independent effects.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Randomization
Participant variables can be controlled and held constant

Matching can equate groups through random assignment of
pairs.
Comparing homogeneous groups allows the researcher to
control for extraneous variables.
Participant as their own controls involve a single group exposed
to multiple treatments, one at a time.
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)can be used to control for
participant variables.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Group Experimental Designs
There are two major classes of experimental designs: single-
variable and factorial designs.
Single-variable designs are any design that involves one
manipulated variable.
Pre-experimental designs do not adequately control for
extraneous variables and should be avoided.
True-experimental designs offer a very high degree of control
and are always preferred designs.
Quasi-experimental designs do not control as well as
experimental designs but are preferable over pre-experimental
designs.
Factorial designs are any design that involves two or more
independent variables, at least one that is manipulated.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›

Pre-Experimental Designs
The designs do not do a good job of controlling extraneous
variables that jeopardize validity.
These designs do not control for maturation.
There may be some control for history in this design.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
The one-group posttest-only design involves a single group that
is exposed to a treatment (X) and then tested (O).
X O
Threats to validity are not adequately controlled with this
design.
Avoid this design if at all possible.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
The one-group pretest-posttest design involves a single group
that is pretested, exposed to treatment, and then tested again.
O X O
The success of the treatment is determined by comparing pretest
and posttest scores.
This design does not control for history, testing,
instrumentation, regression, or maturation.

Statistical regression is not controlled nor is pretest-treatment
interaction.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
The posttest-only design with nonequivalent groups involves at
least two nonrandomly formed groups.
One group receives an experimental treatment and the other
group receives the traditional treatment. Both groups are
posttested.
X1 O
X2 O
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
True Experimental Designs
The pretest-posttest control group design requires at least two
groups.
Groups are formed by random assignment.
Both groups are administered a pretest, each group receives a
different treatment and both groups are posttested.
The design may be extended to include additional groups.
Gay & Mills

10-‹#›
R O X1 O
R O X2 O
R O X3 O
The combination of random assignment and the presence of a
pretest and a control group serve to control for all threats to
internal validity.
The only potential weakness in this design is a possible
interaction between the pretest and the treatment.
Researchers should report assess and report the probability of a
pretest-treatment interaction
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
One variation includes random assignment of matched pairs to
the treatment groups.
There is little advantage to this variation.
Another variation of this design involves one or more additional
posttests.
R O X1 O O
R O X2 O O
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›

The posttest-only control group design is the same as the
pretest-posttest control group design except that it lacks a
pretest.
R X1 O
R X2 O
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
This design is often expanded to include more than two groups.
The posttest-only control group design is best used when there
is likelihood of a pretest-treatment interaction threat.
As with the pretest-posttest control group design, the addition
of a matched random assignment does not represent an
increased advantage.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
The Solomon Four-Group Design is a combination of the
pretest-posttest control group design and the posttest-only
control group design.
R O X1 O
R O X2 O
R X1 O

R X2 O
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
The analysis of the Solomon four-group design is a 2 x 2
factorial analysis of variance.
This analysis tests whether those who received the treatment
performed different than those who did not.
This analysis can assess for a testing effect.
This analysis assesses for pretest-interaction effects.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
The Solomon four-group design requires a large number of
participants.
The Solomon four-group design may not always be the best
design.
The design selected should be based upon potential threats and
the nature of the proposed study.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›

Quasi-Experimental Designs
When it is not possible to assign participants to groups
randomly, researchers can use quasi-experimental studies.
In the nonequivalent control group design, two or more
treatment groups are pretested, administered a treatment, and
posttested.
O X1 O
O X2 O
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
The nonequivalent control group design involves the random
assignment of groups not individuals.
The lack of random assignment introduces validity threats (e.g.,
regression, and selection interaction effects).
To reduce threats when using this design researchers often
assure groups are as equivalent as possible (e.g., use
ANCOVA).
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
The time-series design is an elaboration of the pretest-posttest
design.
One group is repeatedly pretested until pretest scores are stable.
The group is then exposed to a treatment and after treatment is
repeatedly posttested.

O O O O X O O O O
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
A variation of the time-series design is the multiple time-series
design that includes a control group.
This variation eliminates the history and instrumentation
threats.
O O O O X1 O O O O
O O O O X2 O O O O
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
History is a threat with time-series designs.
Instrumentation may also be a threat if testing changes.
Pretest threats are problematic with time-series designs.
However, it is relatively easy to establish the degree of the
threat given data from repeated testing.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›

In a counterbalanced design, all groups receive all treatments
but in a different order, and all groups are posttested after each
treatment.
Counterbalanced designs can include any number of groups.
The number of groups is equal to the number of treatments.
Treatment order is randomly assigned.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
A unique threat with a counter-balanced design is multiple
treatment interaction.
X1 O X2 O X3 O
X3 O X1 O X2 O
X2 O X3 O X1 O
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Factorial Designs
Factorial Designs are elaborations on single-variable
experimental designs to permit investigation of two or more
variables, at least one of which is manipulated by the
researcher.
Factorial designs are often employed after an independent
variable has first been investigated individually.

Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Factorial Designs
The purpose of a factorial design is to determine whether the
effects of an independent variable are generalizable across all
levels.
One example of a factorial design is the 2 X 2 design.
Type of instruction (computer-based or paper and pencil) by
gender.
Many factors (independent variables) studies are possible to
address specific research questions.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›
Factorial Designs
Many factorial designs are possible but in reality more than 3
factors are rarely considered because of sample size
considerations.
Interactions are difficult to interpret with multiple factors in
factorial designs.
Gay & Mills
10-‹#›

Department of Business AdministrationMGT 211, Semester 2nd ,.docx

Department of Business AdministrationMGT 211, Semester 2nd ,.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Department of Business AdministrationMGT 211, Semester 2nd ,.docx

Similar to Department of Business AdministrationMGT 211, Semester 2nd ,.docx (20)

More from simonithomas47935

More from simonithomas47935 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Department of Business AdministrationMGT 211, Semester 2nd ,.docx