Evaluation of Baddeley's Study
While Baddeley's study provides valuable insights, we should consider its strengths and limitations using the GRAVE framework. The generalisability is somewhat limited despite the 72 participants, as each condition only had 15-20 people. Additionally, the sample was ethnocentric (all British) and consisted of volunteers who might have better-than-average memories.
The study scores highly on reliability due to its standardised procedures and careful control of variables. Baddeley improved reliability by replicating the study three times, eliminating confounding variables each time. Using slideshows to display words also helped those with hearing difficulties.
In terms of application, this research has significantly influenced cognitive psychology and memory models. It directly contributed to the development of the Working Memory model. The findings also have practical applications for students - understanding that LTM works semantically explains why mind maps with meaningful connections are effective revision tools.
The validity improved throughout Baddeley's experiments. By his third experiment, he successfully controlled STM interference to properly measure LTM. However, the ecological validity remains low due to the artificial setting and word-recall tasks, though the surprise re-test did add some real-world relevance.
Student tip: When evaluating psychological studies, always consider GRAVE factors (Generalisability, Reliability, Application, Validity, Ethics) - Baddeley's study is particularly strong on reliability and application but weaker on generalisability and ecological validity!