A Delphi study to strengthen research methods training in undergraduate psychology programmes

Abstract

Psychology programmes often emphasise inferential statistical tests over a solid understanding of data and research design. This imbalance may leave graduates under-equipped to effectively interpret research and employ data to answer questions. We conducted a two-round modified-Delphi to identify the research methods skills that the UK psychology community deems essential for undergraduates to learn. Participants included 103 research methods instructors, academics, students, and non-academic psychologists. Of 78 items included in the consensus process, 34 reached consensus. We coupled these results with a qualitative analysis of 707 open-ended text responses to develop nine recommendations for organisations that accredit undergraduate psychology programmes—such as the British Psychological Society (BPS). We recommend that accreditation standards emphasise (1) data skills, (2) research design, (3) descriptive statistics, (4) critical analysis, (5) qualitative methods, and (6) both parameter estimation and significance testing; as well as (7) give precedence to foundational skills, (8) promote transferable skills, and (9) create space in curricula to enable these recommendations. Our data and findings can inform modernised accreditation standards to include clearly-defined, assessable, and widely-encouraged skills that foster a competent graduate body for the contemporary world.

ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) explanation and elaboration: Guidance and examples to support reporting consensus methods

“…"We preregistered a protocol before advertising the study (https://osf.io/5h7bu). Deviations from the preregistered protocol are outlined in Supplementary Material C." [38] Example M2. Describe the role(s) and areas of expertise or experience of those directing the consensus study.…”

“…"In Delphi exercises, a minimum of 12 respondents is generally considered to be sufficient to enable consensus to be achieved, larger sample sizes can provide diminishing returns regarding the validity of the findings. [34][35][36][37][38][39] Nevertheless, Delphi sample sizes depend more on group dynamics in reaching consensus than their statistical power. 40,41 A non-probability purposive sample of ninety-six participants were invited via email to participate in this Delphi survey.…”