PS300 Unit 7 Naturalistic Observation Report Example

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

Four one-hour observations of 412 pedestrians crossing Division Street in Spokane are reported in this PS300 Unit 7 naturalistic observation report. Phones were in use at the curb for 118 pedestrians, 28.6 percent, with 73 of 215 younger and 45 of 197 older crossers. Phone users turned toward traffic before stepping off in 37 of 118 cases against 170 of 294 others, and crossed against the signal in 17 of 118 against 27 of 294. Two observers agreed on phone use 74 times in 80, a kappa of 0.82. Interpretation stops at association, and four limits are listed. Purdue Global PS 300, Research Methods I, assigns this report in the BS in Psychology course.

CoursePS300 Research Methods I
UnitUnit 7
Paper typeNaturalistic observation report
LengthAbout 530 words, 4 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramBS in Psychology
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for PS300 Unit 7

1

Four Hours on a Street Corner: A PS300 Unit 7 Naturalistic Observation Report

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PS300: Research Methods I

Unit 7 Naturalistic Observation Report

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The observations, counts and observers are composite; the methods sources cited are real.

What this part is doingStating the rate, the main comparison and the reliability figure in the lead gives the report's essentials at once.
2

Method

Two observers recorded pedestrians crossing Division Street from the northeast corner of its intersection with Spokane Falls Boulevard during four randomly selected one-hour weekday windows over two weeks. Each pedestrian who stepped off the curb during a window was coded for phone use at the moment of stepping off, whether the person turned the head toward oncoming traffic before stepping off, whether the walk signal was lit and a broad age estimate, under or over 30. Definitions followed the Unit 5 coding scheme, revised after the ethics seminar. One pedestrian was warned and excluded when about to step into a turning car's path.

Reliability

Both observers coded the first 80 pedestrians independently. They agreed on phone use for 74 of 80, or 92.5 percent. Because some agreement happens by chance, Cohen's kappa was computed: 0.82, which falls in the range commonly described as almost perfect agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977). Kappa for looking was 0.74 and for signal compliance 0.91. After the reliability sample, one observer coded the remaining pedestrians.

Results

Of 412 pedestrians observed, 118, or 28.6 percent, were using a phone at the moment they stepped off the curb: 103 viewing or texting and 15 talking with the phone at the ear. The rate was higher among pedestrians estimated to be under 30, 73 of 215 or 34 percent, than among those estimated older, 45 of 197 or 23 percent.

Among phone users, 37 of 118, or 31 percent, turned their heads toward oncoming traffic before stepping off, compared with 170 of 294 others, or 58 percent. Phone users crossed against the signal in 17 of 118 cases, 14 percent, and other pedestrians in 27 of 294, 9 percent.

Fewer than one in three phone users looked before stepping into the street.

What this part is doingReporting counts beside percentages lets a reader check every figure in the results.
3

Interpretation

The results show that phone use while crossing was common at this intersection and associated with less looking before crossing, consistent with Thompson et al. (2013). They do not show that phone use caused the difference. Younger pedestrians used phones more, and age, or a habit of hurrying, could explain part of the gap in looking. The design records behavior at one moment and cannot separate those explanations; observational studies describe and associate but cannot test causes (Cozby & Bates, 2020).

Limitations

Four limitations apply. Observations came from one intersection and one corner, during daylight weekday hours, so they may not represent other places or times. Age was estimated by appearance and only in two broad groups. Only one observer coded after the reliability sample, so later coding may have drifted. And excluding the one pedestrian who was warned slightly removed the most dangerous case from the data.

Next Step

The survey in Unit 8 will ask pedestrians about their own phone use and near misses, adding information the observation cannot capture, such as whether people who often walk while using phones recall more close calls.

What this part is doingPointing to what the survey can add shows the report knows the limits of observation.
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

The Purdue Global PS300 Unit 7 instructions

PS300's seventh unit often asks for a report of a completed observation with results and interrater reliability. Summarize the method briefly, including setting, sampling, definitions and any changes from the plan. Give reliability twice, once as raw percent agreement and once as kappa, and say what the kappa value means on a published scale. Present results as counts and percentages so readers can check them, comparing groups where the question calls for it. Interpret the findings in relation to published research, and state clearly what an observational design cannot show. List limitations specific to how the observation was carried out. Close with how the next stage of the project will address what observation could not.

Inside the PS300 Unit 7 example

The report's method section recaps the corner, the random windows, the four coded behaviors and the excluded pedestrian. Reliability gives 74 of 80 agreements, kappa 0.82 described with Landis and Koch's scale, and kappas for looking and signal compliance. Results report the overall rate, the split by talking and viewing, the age difference and the looking and signal comparisons, under a highlighted line that fewer than one in three phone users looked. Interpretation links the findings to the Seattle study and names age and hurry as alternative explanations, citing Cozby and Bates. Four limitations and the next step, the survey, close the report. Every percentage in the report appears beside the count behind it, which lets a reader recompute any figure.

Where the points sit in the PS300 Unit 7 rubric

Observation reports are graded on transparent results and honest interpretation. Instructors look for reliability reported with a chance-corrected statistic and interpreted correctly, and for results presented with counts that can be checked. Comparisons between groups should match the research question. Interpretation earns credit when it relates findings to published work and resists causal language. Limitations should describe what actually happened in this observation, such as a single observer after the reliability sample. Connecting to the next stage of the project shows the report is part of a design, not an isolated exercise. Methods and published sources cited correctly complete the report. A report that a classmate could check line by line against the coding sheets is the standard to aim for.

Common PS300 Unit 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them

The most common slip reports percentages without counts, which hides small numbers. Another is reporting percent agreement alone, which overstates reliability when one category is common. Students often slip into causal language, saying phone use made people look less. Limitations are frequently generic rather than tied to the actual procedure. Some reports omit any comparison with published research. Before submitting, add counts beside every percentage, report kappa as well as agreement, replace any causal verbs with association language, list limitations drawn from what you actually did and mention one study your results agree or disagree with. Those habits make an observation report trustworthy. A report built this way invites checking rather than trust.

Get a PS300 Unit 7 example written to your instructions

Send your coding sheets, counts and the instructions with the rubric. A custom report presents results, agreement and limits. Delivery is within 24-48h, and a first report is free. 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 7 questions, answered

What is interrater reliability?

The extent to which two observers code the same events the same way.

What is Cohen's kappa?

An agreement statistic that corrects for agreement expected by chance.

Can an observation show cause?

No; it describes behavior and associations.

Where can I find a free PS300 Unit 7 sample paper?

Read the whole PS300 Unit 7 report here, covering a composite crosswalk observation of 412 pedestrians with interrater reliability.

What was the kappa in the PS300 Unit 7 sample?

0.82 for phone use, based on 74 agreements in 80 pedestrians, which falls in the range described as almost perfect agreement.