Description
I need two responses for these discussions.1- The researchers used an existing questionnaire that was then given to the research subjects to be filled out. The questionnaire seemed to fit the research question, it was called the Stress related vulnerability scale(SVS). It was meant to test the stress response of people in stressful situations and how vulnerable they are. The other data collection method was the researchers creating a questionnaire using 5 different existing interventions that would potentially work in a proposed scenario. The first questionnaire was definitely the stronger of the two types of data collection methods. It has a history already and can be readily applied to get data in a tested and clinical way. It was also verified that it was a reliable questionnaire to use for this study. The other was specifically made for this study, so in a sense it should be more in tune with the actual study questions the researchers want to ask. But they were made “Ad Hoc”, or as needed, which to me sounds like there could definitely be some kind of bias involved with the questions being asked. Both methods of data collection though were good, they got a good number of participants to ask the questions in the questionnaire. There are definitely limitations to this kind of research, they did not actually perform any of the interventions they questioned about and also had to rely of self reporting for both questionnaires. With self reporting, there is of course the problem of bias. Can we actually trust the researchers and research subjects to answer and collect data free of bias? They do address bias with the SVT questionnaire and say its minimal. The fidelity of the research is excellent, they definitely had a method to their data collection that was in the form of giving the subjects the questionnaire in a similar environment each time.2-In this week’s discussion post, the inter-professional Journal Club read the research article by Enrico et al. The research study is based on how useful is the education on Parkinson’s disease and the stress that comes with it. This research article uses a cross-sectional design to conduct their research. A cross-sectional design “examines data at one point in time and the data is collected only one time” (p.g 194). A cross-sectional design is beneficial when looking at the time and money it takes to conduct a research study. This design is less time consuming and expensive, making it easier to manage. The research study by Enrico et al. carries those same attributes, which are that the data collection part of the study is collected in less time than in other studies, less expensive, and more manageable. The data collection of this study does have some flaws to it as well as the strengths. The flaws in the data collection section are that the data does not reflect any maturing. Maturing means that the data cannot show any improvement during the entire time of the study, because the study collects data at only one point and time. Another flaw is that if there was improvement during the study the researcher’s would not be able to tell if it was based on their hypothesis or of something else.
