6301 discussion 8
5:47amApr 18 at 5:47am
Quantitative research utilizes standardized instruments for the collection of data, while in a qualitative study, the researcher is the instrument and manipulates variables. The use of a standardized instrument in quantitative studies results in more objective research, rather than subjective as in qualitative research. Quantitative research seeks to explain or predict a hypothesis with data analyzed after collection, while qualitative research results in a hypothesis and analyzes data as it is produced (Yegidis et al., 2018).
My research question is: in what way does the emotional reaction to trauma exposure contribute to the development of alcohol use disorder (AUD) in adolescents aged 14-18 years? I believe that a quantitative approach would best serve the purposes of reaching the results I predict, which is that alcohol use in adolescents is an emotional reaction to trauma. I plan to use standardized instruments such as the Emotional Regulation Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents (ERQ-CA; Gullone & Taffe, 2012), the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) that was modified from the original AUDIT test (Bush et al., 1998), and the Child and Adolescent Trauma Screen (CATS; Sachser et al., 2017). After collection of this data, an analysis would be completed. The research would be cross-sectional, as data would be collected at the same point in time and would test the hypothesis on the relationship between these variables (Yegidis et al., 2018).
To ensure cultural sensitivity in this research, I started with researching the availability of the instruments in other languages to allow for cultural diversity in the participant pool (Casado et al., 2012). The AUDIT tool is available in a multitude of languages, a listing of which can be found at AUDIT translations (auditscreen.org)Links to an external site. . The CATS took is available in several languages, including German, Spanish, Turkish, Norwegian, Farsi, Swedish, Arbabic, Dari, Paschtu, and Tigrinya (International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, n.d.). ERQ-CA is available in many languages including German, Chinese, and Spanish (Teuber et al., 2022). Ensuring that these translated tools are equivalent versions would be an important consideration (Casado et al., 2012).
Researchers and assistants who are administering testing would be required to exhibit cultural competence in demeanor and action (Casado et al., 2012). Meeting the informed consent requirement may require some flexibility while maintaining ethical standards based on sensitivity to a participant’s culture. To avoid interpreter bias, as Dr. Sarkar warned in the video (Walden University Office of Research and Doctoral Services, n.d.), the method suggested by Brislin (1970) would be used, in which results are translated and multiple translators review and correct the transcript. Including the criteria of cultural responsiveness in all aspects of this research will help to promote validity of the study (Jacobson et al., 2005).
References:
AUDIT translations. (n.d.). Auditscreen.org. https://auditscreen.org/translations
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216.
Bush, K., Kivlahan, D. R., McDonell, M. B., Fihn, S. D., & Bradley, K. A. (1998). The AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): An effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Ambulatory care quality improvement project (ACQUIP). Alcohol use disorders identification test. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158(16), 1789–1795. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.158.16.1789
Casado, B. L., Negi, N. J., & Hong, M. (2012). Culturally competent social work research: Methodological considerations for research with language minorities . Social Work, 57(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swr002Links to an external site.
Gullone, E., & Taffe, J. (2012). The emotion regulation questionnaire for children and adolescents (ERQ–CA): A psychometric evaluation. Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025777Links to an external site.
International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. (n.d.). ISTSS - Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist. Istss.org. https://istss.org/clinical-resources/child-trauma-assessments/child-and-adolescent-trauma-screen-(cats)#:~:text=The%20CATS%20has%2015%20items%20measuring%20traumatic%20events%2C
Jacobson, S. F., Chu, N., Pascucci, M. A., & Gaskins, S. W. (2005). Culturally competent scholarship in nursing research . Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 16, 202-209.
Sachser, C., Berliner, L., Holt, T., Jensen, T. K., Jungbluth, N., Risch, E., Rosner, R., & Goldbeck, L. (2017). International development and psychometric properties of the child and adolescent trauma screen (CATS). Journal of Affective Disorders, 210, 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.12.040
Teuber, Z., Schreiber, S., Rueth, J.-E., & Lohaus, A. (2022). Emotion regulation among Chinese and German children and adolescents: a binational comparative study. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03578-x
Walden University Office of Research and Doctoral Services. (n.d.). Qualitative research methods: An example. [Video]. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/research-center/student-research/methodologyLinks to an external site.
Yegidis, B. L., Weinbach, R. W., & Myers, L. L. (2018). Research methods for social workers (8th ed.). Pearson.
Response 2
Collapse Subdiscussion Andrea Marie Arra Davison
Andrea Marie Arra Davison ( She/Her)
10:39amApr 18 at 10:39am
Identify three ways in which qualitative and quantitative research differ.
The goal of qualitative research is often rich contextual data imbued with subjective meaning from individual experiences (Yegidis et al., 2018). In comparison, quantitative research often aims to remain as objective as possible. It is essential to understand the rich contextual subjective meaning when exploring an unknown topic or advocating or empowering individuals toward social change, such as in feminist and participatory action approaches. Quantitative research, on the other hand, is often centered on discovering relationships between variables and determining cause and effect when possible (Yegidis et al., 2018).
Another way in which qualitative and quantitative research often differ is in terms of the reasoning used, inductive (qualitative) versus deductive logic (quantitative) (Yegidis et al., 2018). Qualitative research often uses a bottom-up approach to reasoning such that the researcher immerses themselves in the data and identification of themes and theories that come from the data and its meaning. These identified theories and hypotheses are then often tested using quantitative methods. Quantitative research, on the other hand, uses a top-down approach. The researcher identifies theories and understandings based on previous research findings, and hypotheses are tested based on previous research and theory.
Data collection is another way qualitative research can differ from quantitative research (Yegidis et al., 2018). For example, qualitative research will often conduct semi-structured interviews with participants. Based on these interviews, the researchers could identify themes requiring further understanding and conduct more interviews. The ideal situation is to reach saturation, especially in a grounded theory approach (Cho & Lee, 2014). Theoretical saturation is when sufficient data collection has occurred such that no new insights or issues come from subsequent data collection and “conceptual categories have been identified, explored, and exhausted” (Hennink et al., 2017, p. 592). Researchers using quantitative data are most often interested in identifying representative samples up-front and, in the case of experimental designs, ideally measuring at the same point in time (Yegidis et al., 2018). The goal of data collection in quantitative research is often minimizing bias and ensuring reliability, validity, and generalizability.
After reviewing these approaches, which is a good fit for your study and why?
My research question is what equine-assisted intervention protocol will be most effective for improving social functioning in children with autism spectrum disorder? More specifically, my research hypothesis is Children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) receiving the equine-assisted therapy protocol, Galloping Toward Success (EAT-GTS), will have significantly higher scores on the Social Responsiveness Scale – 2nd edition than children and adolescents who do not receive EAT-GTS.
A quantitative approach is a better fit for my study. My premise is based on deductive logic, which is more often a characteristic of quantitative research (Yegidis et al., 2018). For example, previous research has indicated that equine-assisted interventions (EAI) effectively improve social functioning in children with ASD. Likewise, I believe that subsequent analysis of data on social functioning in children with ASD following a specific EAI protocol will provide me with evidence of effectiveness or not.
Likewise, unlike qualitative research that seeks to understand an individual’s lived subjective experiences, I am looking at a cause-and-effect relationship between variables (Yegidis et al., 2018). I am interested in whether or not EAT-GTS will result in improvements in social functioning on a particular quantitative scale.
The use of a quantitative outcome measure leads to my next point. My outcome measure is a quantitative measure of social functioning. Quantitative research often uses quantifiable data to arrive at conclusions from the findings, whereas qualitative research uses textual data (Yegidis et al., 2018).
Another aspect is that I seek to be as objective in my study as possible. In quantitative research, especially experimental research, the objective is objectivity, so the researcher, the methods and measures used, and other study factors do not influence the results (Yegidis et al., 2018). The researchers cannot remove subjectivity from qualitative research; this is often not the goal.
Based on the methodological approach for your study, how will you ensure that your approach is culturally sensitive?
Culturally competent and sensitive research ensures that researchers include all members of society and that all members benefit from research findings (Casado et al., 2012; Villagran, 2022; Yegidis et al., 2018).
Using Meleis’s conceptual framework for culturally competent scholarship, Casado et al. (2012) suggest some considerations for including language minorities in research. They suggest that researchers consider the four main methodological areas of research problem formulation, recruitment and retention, measurement, and dissemination (Casado et al., 2012).
I will ensure cultural sensitivity in problem formulation by approaching key informants in particular cultures and ensuring the identified problem and intervention are culturally relevant. For example, I can approach the First Nations communities in my area and discuss my proposed research, speak with the necessary channels, and identify individuals in the community to discuss and refine the problem and intervention as it pertains to them. As mentioned in our readings this week, First Nations often have review boards that a researcher must work with and obtain approval when working with community members (Yegidis et al., 2018).
I will ensure cultural sensitivity in recruitment and retention by ensuring my cultural competence and humility and that of my research staff (individuals delivering the intervention, outcome assessors, etc.). I will also utilize a cultural broker when necessary. When possible, cultural brokers can be more beneficial to understanding a culture than translators because some information can be lost in translation (EthnoMed, 2016).
I will ensure cultural sensitivity in measurement using the Social Responsiveness Scale Version 2. This measure is translated into multiple languages, and research has demonstrated the scale to be consistently valid and reliable across various cultures (Cheon et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2019; Takei et al., 2014).
And finally, I will ensure cultural sensitivity in dissemination by publishing the results in various formats and languages accessible to diverse cultural audiences. For example, for First Nations, I would return to the tribe, provide information regarding the results and applicability to interested parties, and provide information in translated documents if required. I would also provide my information for any follow-up questions.
References
Casado, B. L., Negi, N. J., & Hong, M. (2012). Culturally competent social work research: Methodological considerations for research with language minorities. National Association of Social Workers, 57(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swr002Links to an external site.
Cheon, K. A., Park, J. I., Koh, Y. J., Song, J., Hong, H. J., Kim, Y. K., Lim, E. C., Kwon, H., Ha, M., Lim, M. H., Piak, K. C., Constantino, J. N., Leventhal, B., & Kim, Y. S. (2016). The Social Responsiveness Scale in relation to DSM IV and DSM5 ASD in Korean children. Autism Research, 9(9), 970-980. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1671Links to an external site.
Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. H. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(64), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1028Links to an external site.
EthnoMed. (2016, December 13). Cultural brokering & advocacy – Interpreting for patients with emotional trauma. https://ethnomed.org/resource/cultural-brokering-advocacy-interpreting-for-patients-with-emotional-trauma/#:~:text=Sometimes%2C%20it%20is%20helpful%20for,parties%20understand%20one%20another%20betterLinks to an external site. .
Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591-608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344Links to an external site.
Nguyen, H. P., Ocansey, M. E., Miller, M., Le, D. T. K., Schmidt, R. J., & Prado, E. L. (2019). The reliability and validity of the Social Responsiveness Scale to measure autism symptomology in Vietnamese children. Autism Research, 12(11), 1706-1718. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2179Links to an external site.
Takei, R., Matsuo, J., Takahashi, H., Uchiyama, T., Kunugi, H., & Kamio, Y. (2014). Verification of the utility of the Social Responsiveness Scale for adults in non-clinical and clinical adult populations in Japan. BMC Psychiatry, 14(302), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-014-0302-zLinks to an external site.
Villagran, M. A. L. (2022). Cultural competence in research. School of Information Student Research Journal, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.31979/2575-2499.120103Links to an external site.
Yegidis, B. L., Weinbach, R. W., & Myers, L. L. (2018). Research methods for social workers (8th ed.). Pearson