How well do fire alarms work for kids?

Shutterstock_1127081897

 Which fire alarm worked best to wake young children up? Photo: YMHhappyfamily/Shutterstock

An important applied psychology question concerns smoke alarms. Does the loud, screeching sound of a traditional smoke alarm work on kids? If not, what would work better? There's a Reuters press release about the findings of the study. 

Sleeping children, as it turns out, are fairly impervious to the screeching of a smoke alarm. Researchers found that most children ages 5 through 8 took more than five minutes to wake up with a standard alarm, as compared with around four seconds when they heard the sound of their mother’s voice, according to the results published in The Journal of Pediatrics.

“The thing that was most remarkable to us was to see a child sleep five minutes through a very loud high-pitched tone, but then sit bolt upright in bed when their mothers voice sounded through the alarm,” said the study’s lead author, Dr. Gary Smith.

In this research, experimenters invited families into a sleep laboratory on four different nights. Here's how a journalist summarized the study: 

Smith and his colleagues recruited 176 children between the ages of 5 and 12 and brought them into the sleep lab for testing. The lab had rooms that were set up to look like a typical bedroom, Smith said.

The children’s brain activity was monitored with electrodes on their scalp and face, and they were allowed to fall into the deepest stage of sleep. Then one of four types of simulated smoke alarm was sounded and researchers measured how long it took for a child to wake up and follow a previously rehearsed escape plan.

The experiment was run four times with each child, each about a week apart, so that all the children were exposed to all four types of alarm: standard high-pitched tone, the mother’s voice with instructions like “wake up” and “get out of bed,” the mother’s voice saying the child’s name, and the mother’s voice saying the child’s name and then giving instructions.

There was no significant difference in time to waking between the three alarms that used the mother’s voice. But there was a very large difference between all three of the maternal voice alarms and the standard alarm.
 
Questions: 
a) This is a simple experiment. What is the independent variable? What are its levels? Is it manipulated as independent groups or within groups? 
b) What is the dependent variable? 
c) Which of the four simple experiments is this: Posttest only? Prettest-posttest? Repeated measures? Concurrent measures? 
d) Sketch a graph of the results of this study.
e) What are the advantages to using a within-groups design in this study? 
f) Which internal validity threat do we most worry about in a design like this? How should the researchers control for that internal validity threat?
 
 
Suggested answers:
a) The independent variable is which smoke alarm they tried, and it has four levels: Traditional beep, Mom's voice saying the child's name; Mom's voice saying the name and giving instructions, and Mom's voice giving instructions. It was manipulated within groups. 
b) The DV is time to wake up (and whether they followed the right instructions)
c) This is a repeated measures design. 
d) Sketch should have "time to wake up" on the y axis and the four alarm conditions on the x-axis. 
e) The strongest advantage here is that each child can serve as their own control. Each child's normal level of "wakeability" is held constant across the four alarm conditions. 
f) We mainly worry about order effects in most repeated measures designs. The researchers should counterbalance the order of the four conditions to help control for this threat. To find out if they did that, refer to Method section of the empirical journal article, here