g g g g g g g g g g g g g g 1
The first strength noticed in your results and discussion sections was focusing on
clearly defining the language within your study. Defining religion and spirituality
can be extremely difficult, especially in a country that is increasingly multi-cultural
with numerous faiths. Over time, the meanings of religion and spirituality have
evolved as well. When conducting research over the topic, past studies has
emphasized the need to cover such terms as to not skew data and improve
accuracy (Hackney & Sanders, 2003). A second strength in your writings is
recognizing the limitations. Identifying your limitations is not only including
integrity in your work but also notes your reflection and thoughtfulness. Future
researchers will be able to implement a plan of action to eliminate some, if not
all, of those limitations.
g g g g g g g g g One area of improvement, if you will, is ensuring your factorable
variables are identified throughout the report (Jackson, 2016). And this ties in with
the second recommendation of choosing different graphs or not including both
marriage and gender visuals if they were not applied variables in your research; it
can cause confusion (Using Graphs, 2018). You stated the purpose of your
research was to investigate the connection between intrinsic spirituality and
perceived stress and did not mention gender or marital status. The third
recommendation is to double check the spacing requirements for tables and
figures, according to the APA 7th ed.
g g g g g g g g g I found your tone and use or words appropriate, as well as work cited.
The selection for analyzing the data appears efficient, as well.
References
Evaluation Briefs: Using Graphs and Charts to Illustrate Quantitative Data. Cdc.gov.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief12.pdf?msclkid=598375dec372
11eca43bb49ca676e1c7
Hackney, C. H., & Sanders, G. S. (2003). Religiosity and Mental Health: A Meta-
Analysis of g g g
g g g g g g g g g Recent Studies. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(1), 43–56.
g g g g g g g g g http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387984
Jackson, S.L. (2016) Research Methods and Statistics: A Critical Thinking Approach.
Cengage Learning
