PSY325 Assignment: Critique of a Research Study
PSY325 Assignment: Critique of a Research Study
Reread the full text of the study you selected in Week One. Evaluate the study and write a critique, using the textbook and relevant journal articles to support your analysis of the study. Use the following section headings and content in your paper.
Introduction
State the purpose of the paper. Clearly identify the study being critiqued, by title and authors. Summarize the research question, hypothesis (if a quantitative study), and background information on the topic from the study’s literature review. Did the authors present a well-balanced summary of current knowledge about the topic? Is there any apparent bias in the literature review?
Methods
Differentiate the research design (experimental or non-experimental) and approach (qualitative or quantitative), sampling method, and data collection methods. Indicate the sample size, variables and measures (if a quantitative study), statistical tests (if a quantitative study), coding and analysis procedures (if a qualitative study), and any assumptions made by the researchers. Were the procedures chosen appropriate for the study? What alternative methods would you suggest?
Ethical Aspects
Analyze ethical issues pertaining to this study. Did the researchers explicitly address ethical issues in the article? If not, was there evidence in the report that the participants’ safety and confidentiality were protected? Was an approval process by an Institutional Review Board or similar ethics review committee mentioned? Were any of the practices ethically questionable (deception, coercion, etc.)? PSY325 Assignment: Critique of a Research Study
Results
Present a summary of the results of the analysis performed in the study. Did the authors keep their interpretations and conclusions separate from the analysis results (evidence)?
Discussion and Conclusion
Analyze and critique the conclusions drawn by the researchers. Do the conclusions follow logically from the results of the analysis? Evaluate the overall efficacy of the research study by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of aspects of its design and implementation. Identify the limitations noted by the researchers and add any limitations you see that were not mentioned in the article. Describe the directions for future research proposed by the authors and evaluate their appropriateness. Recommend at least one idea for a future study that will overcome some of the limitations of this study. Keep in mind that this suggested future study will serve as the basis for your Final Paper.
Your paper should be four to six pages in length (excluding title and reference pages) and formatted according to as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. Utilize a minimum of five sources that were published within the last 10 years and are documented in APA style, as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. These sources should include the article being critiqued, at least three peer-reviewed journal articles, and the course textbook. It is recommended that you visit the Research Methods research guide in the Ashford University Library for suggested articles, as well as searching for articles in the Library’s databases.
Carefully review the Grading Rubric for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.
Stuck on a problem? Don’t skip that assignment – click the button to chat with a live tutor. It is free and here to help you now.
Go to top of page. PSY325 Assignment: Critique of a Research Study
Waypoint Assignment Submission
The assignments in this course will be submitted to Waypoint. Please refer to the instructions below to submit your assignment.
Click on the Assignment Submission button below. The Waypoint “Student Dashboard” will open in a new browser window.
Browse for your assignment.
Click Upload.
Confirm that your assignment was successfully submitted by viewing the appropriate week’s assignment tab in Waypoint.
For more detailed instructions, refer to the Waypoint Tutorial.
.5px;=”” color:=”” rgb(68,=”” 68,=”” 68);=”” font-family:=”” lato,=”” helvetica,=”” arial,=”” sans-serif;=”” font-size:=”” 14px;=”” background-color:=”” rgb(255,=”” 255,=”” 255);”=””>
Course title: PSY 325
Institution: Ashford University
Date: 12/18/
The Self-management of longer term depression: learning from the patient, a qualitative study by Eleni Chambers, Sarah Cook, Anna Thake, Alexis Foster, Sue Shaw, Rebecca Hutten, Glenys Parry and Tom Ricketts
This is a qualitative survey carried out by several authors with the intention of comprehending the manner in which individuals with longer haul depression deal with the sickness, the manner in which services can best back up self-administration and if the standards along with conceptions of the recuperation strategy would be beneficial. The study is making an effort to address the questions on how individuals encountered depression along with what assisted them to self administer (Chambers, Cook, Thake, Foster, Shaw, Hutten, Parry & Ricketts, 2015).
This study on the self-management of longer term depression can be associated with biological psychology as a research area in psychology. This is due to the fact that the study entails looking in depth the lives of individuals with continuing depression and how they help themselves to live with it. This is to say that to some extent the study looks into physiological psychology along with health psychology. These two aspects are connected to biological psychology thus making it possible to associate the two.
Ethical issues are unavoidable in the course of carrying out a research, it is therefore advisable that psychologists look into the different ethical issues and considerations that might come up prior to, in the course of and after a research. This study addressed several ethical issues, they comprise of; informed consent; the study team enlightened participants about the survey and what they were aiming to address and giving them the chance to decide whether or not to take part in the study.
The second principle was do not harm; this principle was dealt with by the survey team making use of abilities to reduce any probable discomfort or stress in the course of the interview procedure. This is to show that they had the participants’ wellbeing in mind. There was also respect for anonymity and privacy; this ethical issue is highly linked to the privileged of do not harm, esteem for dignity along with honesty. The researchers made this issue achievable by making certain that participants were not forced into giving out their personal details. On top of this, the study team gave room such that the interviews along with audio recording could be halted on the participant’s request. This is a clear indication that they did not want to go against or violate any person’s rights in the course of this survey (Chambers, Cook, Thake, Foster, Shaw, Hutten, Parry & Ricketts, 2015).
I discern that vulnerable groups of people are an ethical issue that applies but was not discussed. Individuals who are known to have been suffering from disconsolation for long periods of time are clearly are known to be vulnerable. This means that they are somehow to some extent not in a position to safeguard their personal privileges along with wellbeing. It also means that they are not capable of giving an informed consent as they can be easily manipulated. The research team ought to have addressed this ethical issue due to the fact that it was dealing with and studying a vulnerable set of individuals.
Another ethical issue that I discern should have been mentioned in the study is; the abilities of the researcher. The surveyors ought to have introduced themselves before the participants and stated their different skills as researchers. This would have acted as a way of assuring the participants that they were dealing with professional researchers and that they were safe in their hands.
Reference
Chambers, E., Cook, S., Thake, A., Foster, A., Shaw, S., Hutten, R., Parry, G., & Ricketts, T. (2015). The self-management of longer-term depression: Learning from the patient, A qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry, 15, 172. doi:10.1186/s12888-015-0550-6
