Module 24 - 26 :Refinement Flashcards
(13 cards)
Evaluating the Merits of Qualitative Studies - the big scandal
In 1996 a physics professor named Alan Sokal wrote a paper titled: “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
It was published it in the “Social Text” a reputable journal. It was a Hoax… work of fiction
In 2018 three scholars wrote 20 ridiculous papers and published 7 in what has been collectively termed “Sokal Squard”
* Used fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions
Evaluating the Merits of Qualitative Studies - Trustworthiness as a Starting Place for Evaluation
Convincing an audience that a study is worth paying attention to and worth taking account of
- One place to start when evaluating qualitative research
Evaluating the Merits of Qualitative Studies - Ways to enhance trustworthiness
Audit trail - Researchers maintain detailed description of entire research process. Someone external to study examines various components of study
Member check - Study participants review data or study interpretations. Opportunity to add, alter, delete
Peer debrief -Researchers pushed by professional “peer” to critically reflect on study
Present negative or discrepant information - presenting information that counters main study findings
Evaluating the Merits of Qualitative Studies - Ways to enhance trustworthiness
Prolonged engagement - sustained time spent with participants “in the field”
Purposeful sampling
oRecruiting information-rich participants who can best inform research question
Researcher reflexivity - Reflect on biases, experiences, and background to consider how these shape research
Triangulation - multiple data sources to enhance credibility
Reliability
Reliable = consistent ≠ perfect, reliable cars examples
- Consistency or stability of measurement
- 150 lbs scale examples, reliable = scale shows 150 every time, regardless of person
Measurement efforr and measured score
A measurement error is the difference between an observed value, and an actual value
*They almost always occurs
- measurement error is reliability
- make an operational definition that minimizes error
- combination of random and systemic error
Measured score = true score + measurement error
Systematic vs random error
Systematic Error (bias error)
* A bias can result in a systematic error sometimes
- Predictable
Random Error (confounding variable present)
* Due to chance
* Unpredictable
Types of reliability
Study guide
Validity Definition and type
Study guide
Measurement validity
-measuring what it is intended to
- Is the measurement accurate?
Study validity
- Are the methods of the study valid. Bias free?
Face validity
- Logical or Face Validity (Common-sense)
- subjective, superficial assessment
- lowest level
Content validity
Content (expert opinion)
* Degree to which a test adequately samples what was covered
Criterion validity
Criterion (Gold standard)
* Degree to which scores on a test are related to some recognized standard or criterion
- Example: Skin fold testing vs DXA (dual x-ray absorption) for body comp
Construct validity
Construct (hypothetical construct)
* Degree to which a test measures a hypothetical construct
- Extent to which the conceptual definitions match the operational
definitions
