{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025193798449612403, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003229974160206718, 'mean_word_length': 6.341232227488152, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Can Teaching Data Analysis In-House Improve Psychology Students’ Skills?

Background: Acquisition and generalization of data analysis skills are perennial challenges for psychology students. Teaching advanced data analysis in a psychology-specific context might improve students’ learning. Objective: At a mid-sized public university, we evaluated student outcomes after a new quantitative psychology course taught in the psychology department compared to upper-level statistics courses taught in the statistics department. Method: Undergraduate psychology majors (N = 80) completed quantitative psychology and/or upper-level statistics courses in preparation for their capstone research course. Participants also completed a brief data analysis skills assessment and the Major Field Test for Psychology. Results: Controlling for prerequisite grades and ACT composites, participants who completed quantitative psychology compared to upper-level statistics had significantly better academic outcomes, on average (standardized mean difference = 0.37). Conclusions: Psychology students completing an upper-level data analysis course within versus outside the department demonstrated better learning outcomes in psychology. Teaching Implications: Psychology programs that outsource data analysis courses should consider whether teaching these skills in-house holds potential to improve student outcomes. Alternatively, statistics departments might consider developing psychology-themed courses taught by faculty with expertise in psychological science.