week 7 feedback

2

Week 7 Discussion

Student’s name

Instructor

Course

Date

Introduction

You, as a researcher, will have to pick which study design is most appropriate for the method you want to provide. However, researchers encounter inherent challenges when establishing a program assessment system for an agency. No matter what the study's questions are or what evidence I need, my assessment program should not be restricted to a single agency. Suppose my research isn't confined to a single agency. In that case, this document will address how I may conduct clinical trials to test treatment efficacy and whether to randomize people into groups and conduct a true experiment.

How would my research design be different?

My study would need a more narrowly defined issue as opposed to one that is more generic in nature. There must be a particular field of research that the issue is addressed in. In addition, if the rules of a particular agency did not bind me, I would make certain that my research questions were tied to the issue statement and the focus of the study. As a consequence, I will absolutely alter my research method to fit my study's guided evaluation design strategy. My inclusion criteria would be precisely defined and adhered to so that my research could be verified and differentiated from other studies. By pointing out a gap and explaining how the research fills that gap or challenges previous results or assumptions, I would be sure to clearly characterize the study's contribution to the field. It is essential that the study explain how participants may reduce the risk of providing incorrect information while still being able to appropriately address the research topic at hand (Owen, 2020). The constraints and reasons for their existence must also be included in the study design. As a result of the constraints, missing data should be noted. Limitations in the study's findings should be explained in terms of their impact on the validity and how they have been mitigated, if at all.

Could you design a clinical trial to test the effectiveness of treatments?

There are no limits on using a specific agency to answer the research questions addressed in my prior proposal (CATC and ASATP); thus, I assume I'll base my arguments on science-supported facts to answer the unknown in a methodical way. Experimentation and observation are used to accomplish this. All assumptions must be based on inference and the probability of it. Logic may be used to solve certain problems. These problems may be answered using theoretical world views (Mertens & Wilson 2018). For these types of questions, it has been proven to be the most effective and reliable methodology thus far since there is a less personal bias, and it can be verified more easily as a result of this practice. Assumptions and hypotheses may be readily spotted using the scientific approach. A human drive to learn about the world around them is eventually satisfied by this. There are two primary areas of study in science: experimental and observational. The other is qualitative vs. quantitative. Data on both of these are gathered in order to provide a comprehensive response to the queries being made.

Would you be able to assign participants to groups and run a true experiment randomly?

No, for the simple reason that random assignment is desirable, but it's not always successful. An imbalance between gender participants might confuse the subject due to the circumstances. Having access to your target population and the ability to assign each participant at random to a condition is essential to obtaining a genuinely random sample. This is excellent since only the random assignment of participants by the researcher prior to manipulating data provides a causal interpretation of the findings (Mohseni, Zarei & Ragan, 2021).

References

Mohseni, S., Zarei, N., & Ragan, E. D. (2021). A multidisciplinary survey and framework for design and evaluation of explainable AI systems. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 11(3-4), 1-45.

Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2018). Program evaluation theory and practice. Guilford Publications.

Owen, J. M. (2020). Program evaluation: Forms and approaches. Routledge.