Posted 28 April 2016 - 16:49
Thank you for publishing the final study. It was a fascinating read and very well done for the course which the study was to fulfill. I thought your statistical analysis and display of data were very well done. I commend you on such a fine effort. This could clearly be the beginnings of an excellent master's thesis.
With that said, I would like to offer some constructive (I hope) comments. As a scientist, I would have preferred seeing your hypothesis more clearly stated both in the abstract, end to your introduction and again in your discussion section. Also, there are a number of considerations that may skew the results of the study. As Dickkooty2 indicated, one would be a bias towards collectors that also use computers as a means of communicating their interest in their hobby. Also, perhaps pen collectors would not have been the best subject group. It makes perfect sense that pen collectors would be more extroverted and open because our collections are utilized for communicating - not only with each other, but with those we come in contact with. You likely would get different results if you used coin collectors or fine art collectors. Finally, your questionnaire was biased towards your hypothesis - that collectors lean towards neuroticism, extrovertism and openness. Perhaps a less biased approach in your questions would help you. I would recommend discussion of this type of study not only with psychological researchers, but also with epidemiologists. Many times an epidemiologist must write questionnaires to determine disease etiology, but they must be very careful in their wording to not skew results towards or away from condition of disease.
Overall, very well done!
"Today will be gone in less than 24 hours. When it is gone, it is gone. Be wise, but enjoy! - anonymous today