APA formattig edit

CRITIQUING QUANTITATIVE METHODS AND MIXED-METHODS 16

Critiquing Quantitative Methods and Mixed-Methods

Name :

University Affiliation:

Date:

I would like to take a moment to mention the overall formatting of your paper. For the most part, your paper looks solid with appropriate formatting. However, as I’m sure you know, APA style has TONS of different requirements for ‘correct’ formatting. I’ve noticed a few places where your paper is close to APA standards, but not quite there.

To help you increase the correctness of your formatting, we’ve created the Writing Center course paper template. This word file is a sample paper that has already been correctly formatted in APA form. If you begin your papers from this file in the future, you’ll be sure that your work is correct.

The course paper template can be found by following these steps:

1. Go to the Writing Center’s Paper Templates webpage

2. Find “Course Paper” at the top of the page and download the “APA 6th edition with Advice” version.

3. Open the file and compare the formatting we’ve provided with your formatting in this paper.

4. In the future, start all your papers by opening this file and inserting your own information directly into the text.

Use this template each time you write a paper as a way to keep your document formatting correct and consistent.

Critiquing Quantitative Methods And Mixed Methods

I recommend including an introduction to this paper to help introduce the paper and the topic to yoru reader. Most/all scholarly writing projects at Walden will contain some sort of introduction to signal to the reader what information you will discuss in the paper, and what form the paper will take. In the side bar, I’ll share some resources with you:

Contrast between quantitative research and mixed methods research

In quantitative research, the main focus is on numerical and statistical data so as bring in mind the meaning of the study whereas, in mixed methods, there is a mixture of elements of qualitative research as well as quantitative research. This means that mixed methods have both numerical data as well as observable data (Newman, & Benz, 2006). In quantitative research, I found out that the behavior was regular and predictable whereas, in mixed methods, it was somehow predictable. In quantitative research, I found out that the study behavior was under controlled conditions whereas, in mixed methods, there was more than a single context.

General advantages of the two research methods

Advantages of quantitative methods

The study is broader and that the number of subjects is greater , thus the generalization for the results is enhanced. Also, this method can permit the greater objectivity, and the accuracy of the results can be enhanced.

The disadvantages of quantitative methods

They include; the data collected can be much narrower and sometimes can be a superficial dataset. For the data provided numerical descriptions, it can be limited as opposed to if it was a detailed narrative that would provide a very little elaboration of the human perception (Newman, & Benz, 2006).

The advantages of mixed methods

They can offset the weaknesses of both the quantitative and qualitative research methods have for this mixed methods allow both the exploration and the analysis of the like study (Creswell & Plano, 2011). Secondly, the researchers are capable of using a variety of the tools that can be availed to them and thus be able to collect most of the comprehensive data.

The disadvantages of mixed methods

This method is more time consuming because one has to collect the two types of data that are quantitative and the qualitative (Creswell & Plano, 2011). Secondly is that there may be the need for more resources than if only one method would have been used.

Response to “qualitative research is not real science.”

I do agree with this claim. This is because of the many disadvantages that are attributed to this research method. First, you find that it surely relies on the feelings of the researcher whereby, one feeling may interact differently with that of the other person. Thus they can result in huge discrepancies in the information reported. Another way is that it cannot give an accurate prediction of the future characteristics as there is no accurate formula as it may be applied in the other research methods.  Nice job here. This paragraph approaches the MEAL Plan I discussed above. I like the development you include here and I hope you’ll practice even more of it in your future paragraphs!

General insights of both quantitative and mixed methods on researchers

Both thus methods allow the researchers to explore the numerical and the nonnumerical aspects of the data collected (Creswell & Plano, 2011). Apart from understanding the spread or concentration of the measured metrics, it is also possible to understand the concentration of the metrics whether more or less. Whereas data cannot be counted, it can be given regarding qualities and vice versa.

It looks like you’ve come to the end of a major section of your paper. Therefore, I’m going to stop moving through your paepr, and instead I’m going to give you some overall feedback on what I’ve noticed about your writing and your paper thus far.

The main piece of feedback I have so far is that I think you do a very nice job with writing overall, but some of the major features of academic writing specifically are not present in your work thus far. My suggestion to you at this point is to look at some of our resources that will introduce you to academic writing as a whole so you can become more comfortable with some of the conventions of it.

Critique Template for a quantitative Study

Article reference (in APA style): Zaman, K., Sack, D., Neuzil, K., Yunus, M., Moulton, L., & Sugimoto, J. et al. (2017). Effectiveness of a live oral human rotavirus vaccine after programmatic introduction in Bangladesh: A cluster-randomized trial. PLoS journals. Retrieved 22 April 2017, from http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002282

URL: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002282

1. Research Issue and Purpose

The research was slated to find out whether rotavirus vaccines were effective as there was no evidence.

1. Hypotheses and Research Questions

The study employed the following two hypotheses which included the rates of the ARD with age which suggest that immunity development as a result of natural exposure decreases with age. The second hypothesis was that the rate of children in villages without HRV was less than half in their second year of life than as observed in their first year.

1. Literature Review

The research had a quality literature review that looked at the current studies about the live oral rotavirus vaccine immunogenicity when issued while accompanied by the oral poliovirus vaccine, it reduces, and the greatest effect is on the initial dose of the OPV.

1. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework

Their conceptual framework was drawn from nursing as it entails the administration of vaccines to the young age.

1. Population

The participants have been adequately described that it was in a Bangladesh rural setting where the number of infants was many whereby 10000 children who were two years and below were studied. This was an adequate number of participants to give credible results.

1. Protection of Human Research Participants

However, o names of the participants were included in this report, nor their personal information like the homestead setting was described here thus the research adhered to the privacy policies provided to the researchers about their participants.

1. Research Design

The study involved a filed trail as well as a control group. A total of 142 villages were studied where children not more than two years old participated.

1. Instruments, Data Collection, Data Generation Methods

The data collection involved a randomized cluster method was utilized. The researchers studied the participants by having grouped them in administrative units that were under Matlab HDSS. They referred to this using as villages.

1. Credibility

The data generated was credible as it involved first-hand observation of the keenly identified participants.

1. Data Analysis

The data was analyzed in a number of ways where the sample size was worked on by methods that base on the total number of outcomes observe. To find out the total effectiveness of the vaccines, two approaches were used they are mITT, and according-to-protocol (ATP) approaches, so as to ensure the accuracy of the results the researchers did not consider any participant who along the way violated the set guidelines.

1. Interpretation of Results

Out of 6527 infant participants, the overall effectiveness of the vaccine was indicated as 29%. When compared between HRV and ARD, HRV was 41. 4% more effective that ARD

1. Discussion of Findings

The discussions and findings were rated to the mode and needed for the study. Thus what was previously intended to be arrived at was successful. However previous studied on this matter had not been done thus these can only be compared to the future studies.

1. Limitations

The limitation of this study was that this study was an open label and the control group was an observed the only group.

1. Implications

The findings of the study warrant the conclusions and the implications as drawn from the authors.

1. Recommendations

This study was sufficiently done and completed. Following the success of the study, the researchers also recommend that further studies may be done to understand the potential level warning of the protection. Also whether additional dose may bring an improvement and also prolonged protection.

1. Research Utilization in Your Practice

Given that this reader h involved assessing the effectiveness of one fo the vaccines. Then it shows that we need always to confirm whether the medicines that are issued to patients are effective enough.

Critique Template for a Mixed-Methods Study

Article reference (in APA style): Newson, R., King, L., Rychetnik, L., Bauman, A., Redman, S., & Milat, A. et al. (2017). A mixed methods study of the factors that influence whether intervention research has policy and practice impacts: perceptions of Australian researchers. BMJ Open. Retrieved 22 April 2017, from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/7/e008153

URL: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/7/e008153

MIXED-METHODS RESEARCH CRITIQUE

1. Research Issue and Purpose

The study was conducted in order to find out the perceptions of the researchers regarding the factors that determine there are impacts of practice ad policy of the intervention research.

1. Researcher Pre-understandings and Hypotheses and Research Questions

The researchers have included their pre-understanding of this article. The research having been funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the highly qualified team of researchers believed that some factors that seemed or be complex worked with the systems and were thought to determine how the research was utilized all along. The hypothesis was negative findings associated with lower academic and wider impacts due to the reluctance of journals to publishing negative findings whereby the researchers were also reluctant to submit the findings that were negative for publication making it harder to realize to realize the impacts of a failed research.

1. Literature Review

The literature review that was done was a high-quality one whereby more searches were conducted to any report on the intervention effects this included books at the current period. This included the scholarly publications.

1. Theoretical or Conceptual Framework

There was no any theoretical concept that I identified in this research study.

1. Participants

The participants here included chief investigators who were obtained from past intervention research studies that had been funded. The investigators who participated in this research were adequately described. Given that these participants have been involved in past researchers then they are the most appropriate for this research.hence their populate size is large enough to be relied upon by the researchers.

1. Protection of Human Research Participants

So as to protect their rights of privacy, no further information about their personal life and their names have been displayed here.

1. Research Design

The research design was made in such a way that it could not be different from the normal healthcare research studies so that their findings could be worked on efficiently.

1. Instruments, Data Collection, Data Generation Methods

The data used here were obtained by issuing online surveys that were duly filled in by the targeted chief investigators.

1. Credibility

Given that the data was worked on using effective statistical methods and the participants were credible people the data generated was credible as well.

1. Data Analysis

The data analysis involved first coding the individual interview transcripts using Nvivo and the exporting it to the excel so as to have a spreadsheet with all the case attributes. So as to ensure that the data was accurate, the authors cross-checked the coded information.

1. Findings

The findings indicated that significant effects of intervention effects and also the publication of results determined whether the policy would be there or practice impacts together with factors closely related to the intervention itself.

1. Discussion of Findings

Thus the discussions and the findings were very much related to the results that were expected however did not find any link to these findings to any previous work.

1. Limitations

The limitation included, that because this was an open-ended interview generated a report, there were so many inconsistencies in the information obtained. However, there was no room of emergence of a unique story.

1. Implications

The findings of the study and the conclusions drawn by the author are warranted by the findings of the study.

1. Recommendations

The researchers have done a completely good job in coming up with a complete study report. However, we have some arguments that the researchers felt that they had exhausted and thus did not need further research. On the other hand, where the researchers felt the need to confirm the clinical significance of some of the research results, they recommended further research. Thus this study is good for manipulation for further studies.

1. Research Utilization in Your Practice

This research study informs me that it is very important to consider all possible outcomes of each study and thus be in a position to publish it. Thus whether the objectives of the study were positive or negative, hey need to be published.

References

Creswell, J. W., & Plano, C. V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (2006). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale, Ill. [u.a.: Southern Illinois Univ. Press.

Newson, R., King, L., Rychetnik, L., Bauman, A., Redman, S., & Milat, A. et al. (2017). A mixed methods study of the factors that influence whether intervention research has policy and practice impacts: perceptions of Australian researchers. BMJ Open. Retrieved 22 April 2017, from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/7/e008153

Zaman, K., Sack, D., Neuzil, K., Yunus, M., Moulton, L., & Sugimoto, J. et al. (2017). Effectiveness of a live oral human rotavirus vaccine after programmatic introduction in Bangladesh: A cluster-randomized trial. Plos journals. Retrieved 22 April 2017, from http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002282