PS300 Unit 5 Observation Plan and Coding Scheme Example

Reviewed by Romilly Dunmore, MEd Research Methods I Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

A naturalistic observation at the Division Street crossing in Spokane is planned in this PS300 Unit 5 observation plan and coding scheme. Phone use means a phone held in view with the head angled to the screen as the first foot leaves the curb, looking means a head turn of at least 45 degrees toward traffic before that step, and signal compliance means the walk light is lit. Event sampling during four random one-hour weekday windows follows Thompson and colleagues, two observers will code the first 80 pedestrians with Cohen's kappa held to 0.70, and a safety rule and no identifying records cover ethics. Purdue Global PS 300, Research Methods I, assigns this plan in the BS in Psychology course.

CoursePS300 Research Methods I
UnitUnit 5
Paper typeObservation plan and coding scheme
LengthAbout 500 words, 4 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramBS in Psychology
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for PS300 Unit 5

1

What Counts as Using a Phone? A PS300 Unit 5 Observation Plan and Coding Scheme

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS300: Research Methods I

Unit 5 Observation Plan and Coding Scheme

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The intersection, observers and schedule are composite; the methods sources cited are real.

What this part is doingGiving the exact definitions in the lead shows the plan is built for reliable coding, not general watching.
2

Setting

The observation will take place at the signalized intersection of Division Street and Spokane Falls Boulevard, a busy crossing used by students, office workers and tourists. Observers will stand on the northeast corner, a public sidewalk where waiting at a bus shelter looks natural, and record pedestrians crossing Division Street from that corner.

Sampling

Event sampling will be used: every pedestrian who begins crossing from the northeast corner during an observation window is one event. To avoid observing only rush hour or only quiet periods, four one-hour windows will be drawn at random from weekday daylight hours over two weeks, following the logic of the random time windows used by Thompson et al. (2013). Groups crossing together will be coded person by person.

Operational Definitions

Each variable is defined so that two observers would code the same pedestrian the same way (Cozby & Bates, 2020).

Phone use: at the moment the pedestrian's first foot leaves the curb, a phone is held in front of the body below eye level or at the face, and the pedestrian's head is angled toward the screen. Talking on a phone held to the ear is coded separately. Earbuds alone are not coded as phone use.

Looking: before the first foot leaves the curb, the pedestrian turns the head at least 45 degrees toward oncoming traffic at least once.

Signal compliance: the walk signal is lit when the first foot leaves the curb.

Approximate age group: under 30, 30 to 59, 60 or older, judged by appearance and recorded as an estimate.

If two observers would code the same person differently, the definition is not finished.

What this part is doingDefining each behavior at a single moment, the first step off the curb, removes most ambiguity.
3

Coding Sheet

Each row of the sheet records event number, time, phone use (texting or viewing, talking, none), looking (yes or no), signal compliance (yes or no) and age group. Observers will code silently and independently.

Reliability Check

Two observers will code the first 80 pedestrians of the first session independently. Agreement will be computed as percent agreement and as Cohen's kappa, which corrects for agreement expected by chance. Values above 0.60 are commonly described as substantial agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977), and this plan sets a stricter bar: if kappa falls below 0.70 on any variable, the observers will discuss disagreements, revise the definition and recode a new sample before continuing.

Ethics

The observation records public behavior and collects no names, photographs or identifying details, which places it at minimal risk. Observers will not interact with pedestrians or intervene unless someone is in immediate danger, in which case safety comes first and the event is excluded. The plan will be submitted to the instructor before data collection, as the course requires.

What this part is doingBuilding the safety exception into the plan shows ethics treated as part of the method.
4

References

Cozby, P. C., & Bates, S. C. (2020). Methods in behavioral research (14th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

Thompson, L. L., Rivara, F. P., Ayyagari, R. C., & Ebel, B. E. (2013). Impact of social and technological distraction on pedestrian crossing behaviour: An observational study. Injury Prevention, 19(4), 232-237. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040601

Reading the PS 300 Unit 5 instructions

Unit 5 of PS300 typically asks you to plan a naturalistic observation with operational definitions and a coding sheet. Describe the setting and where observers will stand so the observation is unobtrusive. Choose a sampling approach, such as event or time sampling, and explain how observation times will be chosen to avoid bias. Write operational definitions for every behavior, each tied to a specific moment and observable criteria, so that two observers would code the same person the same way. Describe the coding sheet. Plan a reliability check with a statistic and a threshold, and what happens if agreement falls short. Address ethics, including identifying information and what observers will do if someone is in danger. Cite methods sources.

How this PS300 Unit 5 example is built

The plan places observers at a bus shelter on the northeast corner and defines each crossing as an event. Random weekday windows are justified by the Seattle study's design. Operational definitions follow, phone use, talking, looking, signal compliance and an age estimate, each fixed to the first step off the curb, under a highlighted line that a definition two observers would apply differently is unfinished. The coding sheet's columns are listed. The reliability section sets kappa against a 0.70 bar, citing Landis and Koch's agreement scale and a retraining rule. The ethics section covers public behavior, no identifiers, a safety exception and the instructor's review. The plan is written so another student could carry it out without asking a question.

Where the points sit in the PS300 Unit 5 rubric

Observation plans are graded mainly on the quality of their operational definitions. Instructors look for definitions tied to a specific moment and visible criteria, so that independent observers would agree. Sampling earns credit when it is explained and designed to avoid bias, such as observing only at rush hour. A reliability plan with a named statistic, a threshold and a response to low agreement shows rigor. A clear coding sheet demonstrates that the plan can actually be carried out. Ethical safeguards, including handling danger, show judgment. Methods sources cited accurately and a setting described concretely complete the plan. Plans that show a draft definition and how it was tightened often earn extra credit for process.

Common PS300 Unit 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The most frequent problem is a definition such as distracted by phone, which two observers would apply differently. Another is observing at a single convenient time, which biases results. Students often skip the reliability plan or mention it without a threshold. Coding sheets are sometimes missing, leaving the reader unsure what will be recorded. Ethics sections tend to stop at saying the study is public. Before submitting, ask a friend to apply each definition to a description of a pedestrian and see if you agree, randomize your observation times, set a kappa threshold and write what observers will do if someone is about to be hurt.

Get a PS300 Unit 5 example written to your instructions

Send your setting and the instructions with the rubric. A custom plan defines behaviors, sampling and coding so two observers could agree. The first one costs nothing, back within 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.

Request this unit free All PS300 units Finished samples

More PS300 papers and BS in Psychology samples

PS300 Unit 5 questions, answered

What is an operational definition?

A description of exactly how a behavior will be observed or measured.

What is event sampling?

Recording each occurrence of a defined event, such as each pedestrian crossing.

Should two people observe?

Ideally, so agreement can be checked.

Where can I find a free PS300 Unit 5 sample paper?

This page holds the complete PS300 Unit 5 observation plan for a composite crosswalk study, with operational definitions, sampling and a reliability check.

How is phone use defined in the PS300 Unit 5 sample?

A phone held in view with the head angled toward the screen at the moment the first foot leaves the curb.