Lecture 4 Flashcards
(44 cards)
1
Q
how is the epistemology of post-positivism characterized
A
- research is a transition that occurs between the researcher and the research participant
- the perceptions of the researcher and research participants influence the knowledge creation
- objectivity or controlling of bias is an ultimate (bit not always attainable) goal
- research emphasizes the meaning attributed to human experiences
2
Q
inductive reasoning is a process of
A
- starting w the general picture and moving to the specific details
- combining both general and specific details to generate new knowledge
- going from the details of an experience to the general picture
- generating new knowledge through a logical process
3
Q
what is the research question classification of non-experimental designs
A
- descriptive/exploratory
- relational
- comparative
- etiological
- methodological
4
Q
what is the procedural classification of non-experimental designs
A
- survey
- observational
- secondary data
4
Q
what is the timing classification of non-experimental designs
A
cross-sectional, retrospective, prospective
4
Q
what are survey studies
A
describe, explore, compare
- methods include questionnaires or interview: designed to collected objective measurement of independent and dependent variables
5
Q
advantages of survey studies
A
- collect a large amount of information
- accuracy of research information if sampling is completed correctly
6
Q
disadvantages of survey studies
A
- self-reported information
- need for researcher expertise: samplong, survey construction, measurement
- potential for selection bias
7
Q
what is a correlational study
A
defined as determining the relationships between independent variables and dependent outcomes
7
Q
correlational study advantages
A
- allows for flexibility
- potential to enhance clinical knowledge
- foundation for experimental studies
- informs frameworks or models for variables that cannot be manipulated
7
Q
correlational study disadvantages
A
- inability to manipulate independent variables
- no randomization
- concern for measurement error
7
Q
cross-sectional study timing
A
explores at one point in time
7
Q
developmental study timing
A
explores the relationship or differences as a function of time
8
Q
longitudinal or prospective timing within studies
A
explores the relationship or differences prospectively, going forward
participants are followed across time
9
Q
retrospective study timing
A
explores the relationships or differences by looking backward at the influence of the independent variables
10
Q
non-experimental design advantages
A
- diff explaining cause-and-effect relationships
- important to develop knowledge base on phenomenon of interest
- useful in forecasting or making predictions
- important designs when randomization control, and manipulation are not appropriate or possible
- useful in testing theoretical models of how variables work together in a group in a particular situation
11
Q
3 reliability attributes
A
- stability
- equivalence
- homogeneity/internal consistency
11
Q
what is methodological research
A
- defined as the development and evaluation of data collection instruments, scales techniques
- psychometric evaluation: focuses on the validity and reliability of a tool or measure to accurately measure the concept of interest
12
Q
what is reliability
A
using correlations/coefficients to interpret: generally, accept >7 coefficients
0 (not reliable) -> +1 (very reliable)
13
Q
what is validity + 3 types
A
measurement instrument accurately measures what it is intended to measure
3 types:
- content: criteria or items “make sense” and align w construct
- criterion-related: relationship between performance on the tool and actual behaviour (concurrent or predictive)
- construct: whether the measurement tool actually measures construct of interest (convergent vs divergent)
14
Q
describe systematic reviews
A
- summation and assessment of research studies focused on a specific research question
- uses systematic methods to identify, select, critically appraise and analyze studies and findings
- provides powerful and useful evidence: meta-analysis
15
Q
what is a meta-analysis
A
scientific process that synthesizes the findings from multiple studies answering one question and statistically summarizes the findings to obtain a precise measure of effect
16
Q
how do we evaluate studies methodology, validity, and reliability
A
CASP checklists - critical appraisal skills programme
17
Q
what is the primary diff in experimental and nonexperimental designs
1) manipulation of an independent variable
2) use of a control group
3) need for a concise research question
4) quantitative results
A
17
a researcher wants to collect detailed information about a phenomena and use the data to make more intelligent plans for improving them
1) case-control study
2) descriptive study
3) retrospective study
4) ex post facto study
18
Literature Review
A synthesis of arguments of many others’ works, how they combine, not summary
- Generally organized by themes or principles and not purely chronological; precise, arguing
- Clarify definitions/terms if necessary
- Guides readers towards the directions that research in the future will take ->
- What has been achieved in the field? Where are the gaps?
What it should show:
- The intellectual progression of debates in the field and where you stand on concepts, ideas,
- Are you able to re-interpret the old material with new tech, contexts, interpretations?
- Evaluate others’ work and advise the reader accordingly
What it shouldn’t be:
- A list of previous papers that doesn’t show themes, issues, and how they relate
- An annotated bibliography that summarizes literature -> ex., www.oxfordbibliographies.com
19
Process of Creating a Literature Review
Reviewing:
- Taking copious notes -> mind maps, charts, diagrams (vs. bullet points)
- Discuss and argue instead of listing facts; argumentation > summary
- What’s missing? Shortcomings? What can it be used for? Stats are always available
- Summarize study’s claims/arguments in 1-3 sentences; aim, thesis, conclusion, relation
- Be selective and include important, seminal research -> most important stuff, some obscure
19
Evaluation: Key points: SAMPPLLE
- Assumptions: What are they assuming and should you accept or challenge assumptions?
- Logic: Do they have good, sound logic?
- Provenance: Is this a reliable source?
- Evidence: Is the evidence clear, or should you ask other questions?
- Methodology: What was their experimental/analytical approach? Can you apply it in different contexts, or is it faulty? Too specific?
- Persuasiveness: Was it emotionally convincing? Does it work?
- Limitations: “Here are our conclusions, and here’s what we should have done”
- Scope: Deep comments about datasets, methods, technology
20
Bigger Picture Questions
- What has been achieved in the field of research?
- Where are the gaps?
- What principles of selection are you going to use?
- How are the articles related?
- Contributions, Limitations, Future Research?
21
Imposing Order/Structure onto Writing:
- Integrate, Synthesize, and Critique -> Group things into larger schools of thought, themes
- Theme: What is the broad topic they’re covering? Cold, flu, migraines...
- Region: Where is their sample? Central Asia, UK, South America; is it different culturally?
- Chronology: Critically think about time; are there new technologies, methods between studies or in the future that can make you analyze differently?
- Argument: Are there any flaws in their logic of their argumentation?
- Process/Method: Does the group of studies use a flawed method to analyze? Is it good for their question, but not good for answering yours? Is that a gap?
22
Planning the Writing
How will you order the discussion?
- Chronologically, like you’re telling a story of progression -> “this emerges”, “this research was done,'' now in this date, we can do this research I will propose...
- Thematically, but can be choppy from moving from topic 1 to topic 2, like a different paper
- Broadly/Specifically? Explain your choice logic by narrowing by time, place
It’s about doing high-level analysis and not just summarizing; cut the bullshit
22
Common Pitfalls
1. Being Excessively Critical: You raise your readers’ expectations that you might revolutionize the field, meanwhile you’re just as limited in ability. Be polite, don’t be personal, be moderate
2. Tangents: Devoting time/space to material irrelevant; cover less ground with more depth
3. Meandering: Going from point to point without connections; revisit your overall structure
a. Write the narrative of findings into your introduction
23
Qualitative
1. Statement of the phenomenon of interest; what are you looking for? Why qualitative?
2. What is the purpose of the research study question?
3. What methods are you using to collect data? Does it address the phenomenon?
4. How are you sampling and is it appropriate?
a. Are you covering legal-ethical issues?
5. How are you collecting data? What strategies, procedures are you using?
6. How will you analyze the data? Strategies, truth, steps, (credibility, auditability, fittingness)
7. Findings/Results presented within context? Does it all make sense?
8. Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations reported on? For the future? Reflection?
9. References
23
Quantitative
1. Research problem statement
2. Purpose behind the study question
3. Literature review and theoretical framework -> what’s missing?
4. What’s their hypothesis or research question they’re answering?
5. What is their research design?
6. How are they sampling and is the type, size appropriate?
7. Are they covering legal-ethical issues?
8. Is the research internally/externally valid and reliable?
9. What is the research approach or methods, with procedures for data collection?
10. What instruments for measurement are being used?
a. Physiological, Observational, Interviews, QUestionnaires
11. How are they analyzing the data? Full disclosure?
12. Findings/Results presented within context?
13. Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations reported on? Future?
14. Application, Utilization, and Limitations of the research?
15. References
24
Critical Reading
An active, intellectually engaging process where the reader participates in an inner dialogue with the writer and enters their point of view
25
Critical Thinking
The rational examination of ideas, inferences, assumptions, principles, arguments, conclusions, issues, beliefs, statements, and actions
- Requires disciplined, self-directed thinking
- Must use intellectual skills like the research critique criteria above
26
Critical Reading:
1. Identify concepts discussed
2. Clarify unfamiliar terms
3. Question proposed assumptions for validity
4. Assess the study for internal/external validity
5. Preliminary Understanding: Skim abstract and article
6. Comprehensive Understanding: Understand author’s intent, review unfamiliar terms, understand terms in relation to context
7. Analysis understanding: Understand parts, critique soundness
8. Synthesis Understanding: Put together, makes sense -> in a greater context
27
Meta-Analysis
Data from multiple quantitative studies where analyses are rerun with a larger pool of data to have stronger, more conclusive findings
27
Yet Another Evidence Pyramid: They all follow the same idea. Use this one.
1. Meta-Analysis, Systematic Reviews
2. 1+ RCT
3. Quasi-Experimental Study
4. Non-Experimental Study
5. Evidence from descriptive, qualitative studies
6. Evidence from one descriptive, qualitative study
7. Authority opinion/Expert committee report
28
Meta-Synthesis
Qualitative; synthesizing multiple findings from multiple studies
28
Assessing Strength: Is the study rigorous?
- Quality: Study’s design, implementation, and analysis minimizes bias -> purity
- Quantity: How many studies evaluated the same research question, how big are samples
- Consistency: Other studies with similar or different designs come to similar conclusions
29
Journals
Identifies the purpose, has space limitations, author guidelines, study type
- Author Info + Brief Bio
- Abstract: Brief study synopsis at the beginning of the article
29
CRITIQUING QUALITATIVE STYLE: Key Points
Describes/explores concepts, phenomena, cultures
- Report conveys the full richness of the phenomena in great detail, “insider”/emic perspective
- Has a conversational tone with quotations from participants that experience phenomena
- Must describe the relationships among themes/categories, be trustworthy -> lost in publishing
Applications:
- Voice to the disenfranchised, understand personal experiences, creative solutions,
- Can develop interventions/instruments to apply stronger research evidence
30
CRITIQUING QUANTITATIVE STYLE: Key Points
- Style reflects journal’s style guidelines and author’s personal judgements
Required Sections:
- Introduction -> Methodology -> Results -> Discussion
