Assignment: You are to analyze a qualitative research study.
Review: Kucharczyk, S., Reutebuch, C. K., Carter, E. W., Hedges, S., El Zein, F., Fan, H., & Gustafson, J. R. (2015). Addressing the Needs of Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Considerations and Complexities for High School Interventions.
Note: you are not to write "yes" "no" answers. You are to describe the research as well as evaluate. For example, in describing the research report, if there is a statement of the problem, state what it is. Of course, you should not restate the entire article; you should provide a summary of what is included with a focus on the most salient points in each section.
Your evaluation should address each section of the research using a format of summary and analysis for each section (not each question). For example, when you evaluate the "Problem," summarize the section and evaluate it based on the criteria for evaluation. Be sure that you identify and define the variables.
The summary and analysis of each section of the research should each be one or paragraphs in length.
Is there a statement of the problem? Does the problem indicate a particular focus of study?
¦ Is the problem researchable? That is, can it be investigated by collecting and analyzing data?
¦ Is background information on the problem presented?
¦ Is the educational significance of the problem discussed?
¦ Does the problem statement indicate the variables of interest and the specific relations among the variables that were investigated?
¦ When necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?
¦ Did the researcher have the knowledge and skill to carry out the research?
Review of related literature.
¦ Is the review comprehensive?
¦ Is the review well organized? Does it flow logically so that the references least related to the problem are discussed first and those most related are discussed last? Does it educate the reader about the problem or topic?
¦ Is the review more than a series of abstracts or annotations? That is, have the references been analyzed and critiqued and the results of various studies compared and contrasted?
¦ Are all cited references relevant to the problem under investigation? Is the relevance of each reference explained?
¦ Does the review conclude with a summary and interpretation of the literature and its implications for the problem under study?
¦ Do the implications form an empirical or theoretical rationale for the hypotheses that follow?
¦ Are most of the sources primary (i.e., are there only a few or no secondary sources)?
¦ Are references cited completely and accurately?
Hypotheses
¦ Are specific research questions listed or specific hypotheses stated?
¦ Is each hypothesis testable?
¦Does each hypothesis state an expected relation or difference?
¦If necessary, are variables directly or operationally defined?
Method Participants
¦ Are the size and major characteristics of the population described?
¦If a sample was selected, is the method of selecting the sample clearly described?
¦ Does the method of sample selection suggest any limitations or biases in the sample? For example, was stratified sampling used to obtain sample subgroups?
¦ Are the size and major characteristics of the sample described?
¦If the study is quantitative, does the sample size meet the suggested guidelines for the minimum sample size appropriate for the method of research represent
Instruments
¦ Do instruments and their administration meet guidelines for protecting human subjects? Were needed permissions obtained?
¦ Are the instruments appropriate for measuring the intended variables?
¦ Was the correct type of instrument used for data collection (e.g., was a norm-referenced
instrument used when a criterion-referenced one was more suitable)?
¦ Is the rationale given for the selection of the instruments (or measurements) used?
¦Are the purpose, content, validity, and reliability of each instrument described?
¦If appropriate, are subtest reliabilities given?
¦Is evidence presented to indicate that the instruments are appropriate for the intended sample? For example, is the reading level of an instrument suitable for sample participants?
¦ If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are the procedures involved in its development and validation described?
¦ If an instrument was developed specifically for the study, are administration, scoring or tabulating, and interpretation procedures fully described?
¦ Does the researcher have the needed skills or experience to construct or administer an instrument?
Design and Procedure
¦ Are the design and procedures appropriate for examining the research question or testing the hypotheses of the study?
¦ Are the procedures described in sufficient detail to permit replication by another researcher?
¦ Do procedures logically relate to one another?
¦ Were instruments and procedures applied correctly?
¦If a pilot study was conducted, are its execution and results described? Is the effect on the subsequent study explained?
¦ Are control procedures described?
¦ Does the researcher discuss or account for any potentially confounding variable that he or she was unable to control?
Results
¦ Are appropriate descriptive statistics presented?
¦ Are the tests of significance appropriate, given the hypotheses and design of the study?
¦ If parametric tests were used, is there evidence that the researcher avoided violating the required assumptions for parametric tests?
¦ Was the probability level at which the tests of significance were evaluated specified in advance of the data analyses? Was every hypothesis tested?