Example Of An Assignment Submitted By Research Paper

Validity in Quantitative Research Design

Validity in Quantitative Research Design
In the article “Effectiveness of an Aspiration Risk-Reduction Protocol” Metheny, Davis-Jackson & Stewart (2010) utilized two-group quasi-experimental design involving usual group of participants and respondents from Aspiration Risk-Reduction Protocol (ARRP) group. Each of the groups was studied on the subject of effectiveness of the treatment. The main concern here is the threat to external validity, as the researchers recruited uneven number of participants in each of the sample groups. Specifically, the scholars involved 329 usual care participants and 145 respondents from ARRP group. It is possible to imply that the study had to recruit an equal number of participants in each group, otherwise the current project pose a threat in the form of selection bias and affects the generalizability of the results. According to Schutz, Rivers, and Ratusnik (2008), “A rating scheme must determine the generalizability of a study to (a) a particular patient, (b) a particular regimen of therapy, and (c) a particular objective or set of objectives” (p. 297). Here, Metheny, Davis-Jackson & Stewart (2010) fail to implement effective procedures for granting effective methodology for the recruitment process.
Also, it is believed that the researchers created a threat to internal validity by creating a selection bias. Cantrell (2011) implied that the findings will be jeopardized when the researcher do not have the control over the characteristics of the participants. It is possible to conclude that by involving uneven quantity of the respondents they managed to prove the effectiveness of the ARRP treatment on the basis of the 28-month time lapse between the usual group and ARRP group treatment. Instead of performing two-groups design, the researchers could have involved the nonequivalent control group design tested before and after the trial, as it was in the case of Padula, Hughes & Baumhover (2009). It is important to note that Metheny, Davis-Jackson & Stewart (2010) did not include these issues into their limitations making their results invalid and lacking generalizability.

References

Cantrell, M. A. (2011). Demystifying the Research Process: Understanding a Descriptive Comparative Research Design. Pediatric Nursing, 37(4), 188-189.
Metheny, N. A., Davis-Jackson, J., & Stewart, B. J. (2010). Effectiveness of an aspiration risk-reduction protocol. Nursing Research, 59(1), 18–25.
Padula, C. A., Hughes, C., & Baumhover, L. (2009). Impact of a nurse-driven mobility protocol on functional decline in hospitalized older adults. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 24(4), 325–331.
Schutz, L. E., Rivers, K. O. & Ratusnik, D. L. (2008). The Role of External Validity in Evidence-Based Practice for Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 53(3), 294-302.