Should I take a more explicit methods course?

[gohogwild]

So, I've taken a psych methods course, but it was called "The Psychological Study of Music". Not very analytical and sexy, I know.

It was definitely focused on psych methods, but sounds kind of artsy fartsy (it was). Does this matter? Should I take another methods course? For reference, I've also taken Intro and Intermediate Stats.

As always, thank you!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

I'm surprised that counted as a methods course. Did it cover basic experimental design, psychometrics and the like? Internal vs. external validity, validity vs. reliability, classical test theory versus item response theory, etc? By definition, these should probably not be content-focused and music is an unusually weirdly-specific topic in the field. It makes sense at the grad level or perhaps an upper-level elective, but I can't imagine covering the methods foundations and that specific content.

Coursework is normally not a huge deal, but in this case I would definitely take a generic one.

 

[gohogwild]

I'm surprised that counted as a methods course. Did it cover basic experimental design, psychometrics and the like? Internal vs. external validity, validity vs. reliability, classical test theory versus item response theory, etc? By definition, these should probably not be content-focused and music is an unusually weirdly-specific topic in the field. It makes sense at the grad level or perhaps an upper-level elective, but I can't imagine covering the methods foundations and that specific content.

Coursework is normally not a huge deal, but in this case I would definitely take a generic one.

Yes, we covered most of those things. Here's the course schedule. I kind of figured that I would need to take a general one also, but wanted to make sure for the sake of... energy conservation lmao. Thank you

 

[StellaB]

Definitely take a general research methods course if you plan to apply to graduate programs. They're not going to check the syllabus of this course when examining your application, and it could disqualify you at the outset from some places, so not worth the risk.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I agree--I'd take a traditionally-named methods course, as you don't want to risk your application being disqualified outright. The good news is that because much of it should be review, you'll probably do pretty well.

 

[Ollie123]

I think Abnormal/Methods/Stats are the only courses I would prioritize having on your transcript in some clear way from the name. Obvious alternative names are fine (e.g. psychopathology vs abnormal) but you wouldn't want - for example - a course called personality and temperament that covertly covered psychopathology. Again, it isn't a <huge> deal and if that is the only option somewhere it is fine. In this case though, I'd take another methods course.

I count 5 truly methods-focused lectures in that schedule. Whatever your school is calling it, that isn't a methods course in my book any more than an abnormal psychology class that discussed some experimental psychopathology studies would be. Fitting all of research methods into a semester is tough, let alone 5 hours. I think we give it short shrift given it really is the basis for our entire field. I'd like to see 2 semesters of methods + labs become the norm for psychology undergrad education.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think Abnormal/Methods/Stats are the only courses I would prioritize having on your transcript in some clear way from the name. Obvious alternative names are fine (e.g. psychopathology vs abnormal) but you wouldn't want - for example - a course called personality and temperament that covertly covered psychopathology. Again, it isn't a <huge> deal and if that is the only option somewhere it is fine. In this case though, I'd take another methods course.

I count 5 truly methods-focused lectures in that schedule. Whatever your school is calling it, that isn't a methods course in my book any more than an abnormal psychology class that discussed some experimental psychopathology studies would be. Fitting all of research methods into a semester is tough, let alone 5 hours. I think we give it short shrift given it really is the basis for our entire field. I'd like to see 2 semesters of methods + labs become the norm for psychology undergrad education.

Definitely agree. I might also add Developmental, as that's a fairly common requirement.

 

[gohogwild]

I think Abnormal/Methods/Stats are the only courses I would prioritize having on your transcript in some clear way from the name. Obvious alternative names are fine (e.g. psychopathology vs abnormal) but you wouldn't want - for example - a course called personality and temperament that covertly covered psychopathology. Again, it isn't a <huge> deal and if that is the only option somewhere it is fine. In this case though, I'd take another methods course.

I count 5 truly methods-focused lectures in that schedule. Whatever your school is calling it, that isn't a methods course in my book any more than an abnormal psychology class that discussed some experimental psychopathology studies would be. Fitting all of research methods into a semester is tough, let alone 5 hours. I think we give it short shrift given it really is the basis for our entire field. I'd like to see 2 semesters of methods + labs become the norm for psychology undergrad education.

Thank you for the interesting and valuable input. Do you find that others share your views? Would the value of two semesters be in getting the student familiar with the options they have when pursuing their grad thesis or to be more competent from jump?

 

[gohogwild]

Definitely agree. I might also add Developmental, as that's a fairly common requirement.

Check!