The case study gathered a lot of information. The data collected was rich, detailed and thorough – they had both qualitative and quantitative data. Also because they used many different methods to gather the data there is some validity.
The study gave Genie a pseudonym so that she couldn’t be recognised and the family couldn’t be traced. Her privacy was able to be protected so that after the study she could live anonymously.
The study of Genie had provided important understanding of the critical period for language development.
The hospital and residential home that Genie was in was not her natural environment. However, anywhere but the abusive household that she had lived in would have been unnatural, and this could have affected her behaviour.
It couldn’t be shown that she would have developed normally with good socialisation because there is the suggestion of problems in infancy. This means that after she was discovered and taken to hospital that she didn’t develop typically because of the underlying problems that had been with her since birth/
There are some ethical difficulties with the study. Genie was the subject of a study and was put through a lot of testing and questioning and it could be seen that she was being taken advantage of. There wasn’t really informed consent or the right to withdraw and it would have been hard because of the circumstances. In terms of rehabilitation, it entailed a lot that wouldn’t be seen in ‘normal’ rehabilitation.
There are few cases of someone going through such extreme abuse and so therefore it is a unique case and cannot be generalised. Also because of the unique nature of the case it cannot be repeated to test for reliability.