Answered You can buy a ready-made answer or pick a professional tutor to order an original one.
The methodology section often gets a bad rap as one of the parts of an article that is “okay” to skip when you’re given an article to read for class. If you really want to be a smart consumer of resea
The methodology section often gets a bad rap as one of the parts of an article that is “okay” to skip when you’re given an article to read for class. If you really want to be a smart consumer of research, though, the methodology section is an important piece to look at, as it gives you clues about whether or not the researchers were careful and did a good job of carrying out their study.
The main purpose of a methodology section is to give the reader enough step-by-step information about how the study was carried out that the reader could then go out and replicate (repeat) the study themselves. Research is supposed to be transparent. If you conduct a study and say that you found such-and-such results, I should be able to conduct the same study and find similar results if your results are valid and reliable. A good methodology section will include detailed descriptions of A) the study participants, B) recruitment of study participants, C) the study design and procedures, and D) the measurement tools that were used to collect data.
Read Section I Introduction, Section II Methodology, and Appendices A and B of the Philadelphia Urban ACE Survey. Answer the questions below. Incorporate the readings for this week into your responses and reference the proper citation
What do the authors say about the reliability of this survey? In your opinion, is this survey reliable? Why or why not?
If you wanted to formally test the reliability of the survey instrument, give 1 example of how you could do this.
What do the authors say about the internal validity of their research design? If they don't say anything, what do you think about the internal validity of their research design?
Based on your knowledge of ACEs and the introduction section, critique the face and content validity of the survey. Does this survey full represent all constructs of adversity? Why or why not, and what else might you include to enhance the face and content validity?