Designing Quantitative Research
Sample Answer for Designing Quantitative Research Included After Question
Designing Quantitative Research
Description
Post an explanation of a threat to internal validity and a threat to external validity in quantitative research. Next, explain a strategy to mitigate each of these threats. Then, identify a potential ethical issue in quantitative research and explain how it might influence design decisions. Finally, explain what it means for a research topic to be amenable to scientific study using a quantitative approach.
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: Designing Quantitative Research
Title: Designing Quantitative Research
Research Theory, Design, and Methods Walden University Threats to Internal Validity (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002) 1. Ambiguous temporal precedence. Based on the design, unable to determine with certainty which variable occurred first or which variable caused the other. Thus, unable to conclude with certainty cause-effect relationship. Correlation of two variables does not prove causation. 2. Selection. The procedures for selecting participants (e.g., self-selection or researcher sampling and assignment procedures) result in systematic differences across conditions (e.g., experimental-control). Thus, unable to conclude with certainty that the “intervention” caused the effect; could be due to way in which participants are selected. 3. History. Other events occur during the course of treatment that can interfere with treatment effects and could account for outcomes. Thus, unable to conclude with certainty that the “intervention” caused the effect; could be due to some other event to which the participants were exposed. 4. Maturation. Natural changes that participants experience (e.g., grow older, get tired) during the course of the intervention could account for the outcomes. Thus, unable to conclude with certainty that the “intervention” caused the effect; could be due to the natural change/maturation of the participants. 5. Regression artifacts. Participants who are at extreme ends of the measure (score higher or lower than average) are likely to “regress” toward the mean (scores get lower or higher, respectively) on other measures or retest on same measure. Thus, regression can be confused with treatment effect. 6. Attrition (mortality). Refers to dropout or failure to complete the treatment/study activities. If differential dropout across groups (e.g., experimental-control) occurs, could confound the results. Thus, effects may be due to dropout rather than treatment. 7. Testing. Experience with test/measure influences scores on retest. For example, familiarity with testing procedures, practice effects, or reactivity can influence subsequent performance on the same test. 8. Instrumentation. The measure changes over time (e.g., from pretest to posttest), thus making it difficult to determine if effects or outcomes are due to instrument vs. treatment. For example, observers change definitions of behaviors they are tracking, or the researcher alters administration of test items from pretest to posttest. 9. Additive and interactive effects of threats to validity. Single threats interact, such that the occurrence of multiple threats has an additive effect. For example, selection can interact with history, maturation, or instrumentation. © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 1 of 2 Research Theory, Design, and Methods Walden University Reference Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. © 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 2 of 2
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Postinga | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||