Evaluation of Rosenhans study, sane in insane places
Genralisabiltiy, the study was not very genralisable, it was a study that took place I the USA and social norms there could be very different to a lot of other coutures around the world. Also the sample although fairly varied culturally for its size (it had a painter and housewife alongside 3 psychologists and others) it was very small, with 8 participants, and only 7 of these being put into the insertitution.
Reliability, The study was somewhat reliable, the data was collect first hand by the participants, some of which may not be as qualified as other, for example one of the psychologists may be better at filling out data then a painter, as a psychologist would know specific things to note down or test within the institution, however opeserations and test for within the institution were fairly basic EG. Recording the repose of a nurse or orderly when asked a basic question, this would require little to no skill to perform.
Application, in counties were metal health is covered by the tax payer it could help to find thoughts who really need help and fund there treatment but know when someone does not require treatment, the study also could help with the problem of labelling someone with a metal health disorder which could affect them negatively latter in life( EG. Hurting job prospects)
Validity, the study was organised by a well regarded psychologist, and carry out by well brief participants, the studies aim was to the reliability of psychiatrists being able to diagnose a sane person sane, and an insane person insane, it achieved the aim as can be seen in the results of 7/8 sane participant being declared insane.
Ethics, the study is not very ethically sound.
Deception, the hospital staff (with the exception of 2 members of staff) had no idea about the experiment, and were obviously deceived as they only were told following the study and even then they were told more pseudo patients would come and none did!
Right to withdraw, this would of been hard for
Reliability, The study was somewhat reliable, the data was collect first hand by the participants, some of which may not be as qualified as other, for example one of the psychologists may be better at filling out data then a painter, as a psychologist would know specific things to note down or test within the institution, however opeserations and test for within the institution were fairly basic EG. Recording the repose of a nurse or orderly when asked a basic question, this would require little to no skill to perform.
Application, in counties were metal health is covered by the tax payer it could help to find thoughts who really need help and fund there treatment but know when someone does not require treatment, the study also could help with the problem of labelling someone with a metal health disorder which could affect them negatively latter in life( EG. Hurting job prospects)
Validity, the study was organised by a well regarded psychologist, and carry out by well brief participants, the studies aim was to the reliability of psychiatrists being able to diagnose a sane person sane, and an insane person insane, it achieved the aim as can be seen in the results of 7/8 sane participant being declared insane.
Ethics, the study is not very ethically sound.
Deception, the hospital staff (with the exception of 2 members of staff) had no idea about the experiment, and were obviously deceived as they only were told following the study and even then they were told more pseudo patients would come and none did!
Right to withdraw, this would of been hard for