The Quality of Health Practice - Essay Example

?Research Critique Introduction In order to ensure the quality of health practice, research evidence which can be used to support the practice must be reviewed and critiqued. This paper shall critique two journal articles on client responses to psychotherapy, comparing their results based on standard measures for research critique. Body The research design for both studies is essentially different, with the Levitt study being a qualitative research and the Cottone study being a quantitative study. Both studies discuss the outcomes of psychotherapy based on specific variables for patients with varying psychological issues. The Levitt study provides a qualitative and a more specific and in-depth evaluation of psychotherapy outcomes for mental health patients. As is common in qualitative studies, they cover a smaller population and results are presented in terms of common themes expressed by respondents (Marshall, 1996). The smaller number of respondents covered for qualitative studies make their results less reliable and less generalizable to a larger population (Daymon and Holloway, 2010). The issue of generalizability is less apparent in quantitative studies, as in the Cottone study which covers a larger number of respondents. The specificity of the results for quantitative studies is however less practical in the actual research, as they provide general figures and numerical equivalents for the results (Scherer-Rath, 2004). The data collection methods for both studies were also different. The Levitt study applied a semi-structured questionnaire in order to gather data from respondents. This method of gathering data is typical of qualitative methods which allow for a more intimate contact between researchers and respondents (Wengraf, 2001). The data was gathered via a one-on-one interview method where the researcher posed the essential questions, and the respondent was not restricted in his answers by a set of choices. This made the data gathering process more detailed and more patient-focused (Flick, von Kardorff, and Steinke, 2004). Due to the smaller population covered, carrying out a more intimate and focused data gathering process was possible. This type of data gathering was however difficult to carry out in the Cottone study and usually in most qualitative studies (Cottrell and McKenzie, 2011). The population is too large to specifically cover within the time allocated for research. Moreover, results had to be translated to numerical figures and using the prescribed scales to measure client progress was the more effective tool for the quantitative study (Thomas, 2009). Using these scales allowed the data gathered to be collated into numerical representations which could be generalized over a bigger population (Horn, 2008). The themes chosen by the researchers in the Levitt study had a good fit to the data gathered. The researchers were able to illustrate how the themes were drawn from the answers. The themes covered specific answers which ultimately helped answer the question being raised by the study. In the Cottone study, the depression and mood disorders scales were used to evaluate the patient outcomes and response to therapy. The scale allowed a measure of patient progress in terms of their specific disorder. It also concentrated on gender differences between respondents in relation to the outcomes from their therapy. Gender measures were however difficult to apply in the empirical sense because the numbers of respondents were lopsided with more females than males in the sample population. Admittedly, with a larger recruited population, a more objective result would have been possible (Evans, 2007). The researchers were also reflexive during the entire process of research in both the quantitative and qualitative studies (Morrow, Boaz, and Brearley, 2012). They identified the ethical considerations they needed to safeguard; they also considered the limitations of the methods they were applying and the results they unveiled after the research. Levitt identified how the number of respondents covered in their research was limited and further recommended future studies which can be carried out in order establish empirical results. The researchers also clarified that their study provides a foundation or basis for future studies on the subject matter. The quantitative study by Cottone is also reflexive in terms of the limitations of their research which mostly refer to the limited male subjects included in the study as well as the small group samples after distribution (Denzin and Lincoln, 2001). The Cottone study also suffers from limited outcome measures used to evaluate the various categories. The construct validity of the results was however kept intact. Nevertheless, the authors were able to point out that for future studies, a larger sample size is needed, and professional therapists with longer years of experience would be essential. Randomization is a crucial tool to safeguard the validity and reliability of any research (National Institute of Mental Health, 2009). In both studies, randomization was not applied. A more specific and purposive means of sampling was applied by the researchers. In some ways, it is difficult to apply randomization when the sample is limited and the population being covered very specific (Gerring, 2007). Nevertheless, efforts to assign each respondent to a particular treatment or intervention must be made in order to ensure the generalizability of the research results (Gerring, 2007). It is often difficult to employ objectivity in qualitative studies, especially in terms of how themes would be developed and how each of the respondents’ answers would fit into the various themes (Creswell, 2003). Nevertheless, the various researchers in the Levitt research were able to maintain research validity with three quality checks performed on the themes with the respondents and among the researchers themselves. Subjectivity is less of an issue in quantitative studies, such as the Cottone study where the answers are already based on fixed demographics and scales (Ayers, Baum, and McManus, 2007). There was no need for the researchers to decide where each answer would belong in the projected answers. The Levitt research was able to establish a very detailed perspective from the respondents on their psychotherapy. There was clarity to these results and the entire research process, including the themes drawn and the principles drawn from the various themes. The results also support previous studies as cited under the review of related research. In effect, there is greater credibility in these results, especially as the authors are presenting their results with the proper evidence based on a rigorous external audit (Breakwell, 2006). The interpretations made are justified and plausible and the readers can easily view these interpretations as accurate. Moreover, no logical fallacies can be seen in the entirety of the research (Breakwell, 2006). The respondents in the Levitt research were offered extra credit in their psychology classes in order to participate in the research. This practice skates a thin line into the unethical realm of research (Grant, 2011). However, this practice has been supported by most researchers because the incentives are now likened to jobs or volunteer activities where compensation or incentives are often given to the individuals recruited (Grant, 2011). In the same vein, the respondents are being compensated for their time and effort, not for the purpose of answering favourably one way or another in the research process. As a result, the credibility of the Levitt research was maintained. In establishing a reflexive critique of this paper, it is apparent to note that each research style provided its own benefits in terms of the research question posed. While both studies meant to evaluate the impact of psychotherapy and what the respondents found important about their therapy, the qualitative study provided a more detailed result and the quantitative study provided a more empirical outcome (Goodwin, 2009). In evaluating both studies, it is apparent that the qualitative study would provide me with the specific actions I can apply in practice, while the Cottone study would give me an overall picture of psychotherapy outcomes. The Cottone study also provides a gender-based perspective of psychotherapy – a gray area which was not considered as an element in the Levitt study. Evaluating both studies from the point of view of a researcher is different from when a counsellor’s perspective is used (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2009). As a researcher, the technical and structural aspects of the research articles are usually given more importance, including the research process applied and the ethical considerations observed by the authors. However, from the perspective of a counsellor, the substantial elements and content of the study are given more importance (Shohov, 2004). As a counsellor, I looked at the results of the study and the points of discussion which the authors were able to draw from the research. Both studies manifested both structural and substantial competence and credibility. The results provided tools which could be used by counsellors and researchers in the future for their practice and for future studies (Columbus, 2008). Structural limitations like sample size and gender based considerations have been recognized by the authors in both studies, but these limitations do not significantly impact on the general credibility and validity of the studies (Columbus, 2008). They also provide considerations for research and adjustments which can be made for future studies on the topic. Conclusion Both studies provide clear and comprehensive perspectives on psychotherapy in terms of their impact on the patients. They utilize reliable and valid research tools which can be replicated and utilized as basis for future studies. The results in both studies also provide a strong contribution for counsellors and researchers in their practice and research. References Alvesson, M. & Skoldberg, K. (2009), Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research, London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Ayers, S., Baum, A., & McManus, C. (2007), Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Breakwell, G. (2006), Research methods in psychology, London: SAGE. Cottrell, R. & McKenzie, J. (2011), Health promotion and education research methods: using the five-chapter thesis/dissertation model, London: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Columbus, A. (2008), Advances in Psychology Research, volume 53, New York: Nova Publishers. Creswell, J. (2003), Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches, London: SAGE. Daymon, C. & Holloway, I. (2010), Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and Marketing Communications, London: Taylor & Francis. Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2001), The discipline and practice of qualitative research, MIT Media Laboratory [online]. Available at: http://web.media.mit.edu/~kbrennan/mas790/01/Denzin,%20The%20discipline%20and%20practice%20of%20qualitative%20research.pdf [accessed 05 March 2012]. Elliott, B. (2005), Using narrative in social research: qualitative and quantitative approaches, London: SAGE. Evans, J. (2007), Your psychology project: the essential guide, London: SAGE. Flick, U., von Kardorff, E., & Steinke, I. (2004), A companion to qualitative research, London: SAGE. Gerring, J. (2007), Case Study Research: Principles and Practices, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, C. (2009), Research in Psychology: Methods and Design, London: John Wiley and Sons. Grant, R. (2011), Strings Attached: Untangling the Ethics of Incentives, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Horn, T. (2008), Advances in Sport Psychology, New York: Human Kinetics. Morrow, E., Boaz, A., Brearley, S. & Ross, F. (2012), Handbook of User Involvement in Nursing and Healthcare Research, London: John Wiley & Sons. National Institute of Mental Health (2009), What is randomization? [online]. Available at: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/a-participants-guide-to-mental-health-clinical-research/what-is-randomization.shtml [accessed 05 March 2012]. Marshall, M. (1996), Sampling for qualitative research, Family Practice, vol. 13(6), pp. 522-525. Scherer-Rath, M. (2004), Normativity and empirical research in theology, London: BRILL. Thomas, J. (2009), Handbook of Clinical Psychology Competencies, London: Springer. Shohov, S. (2004), Advances In Psychology Research, volume 30, New York: Nova Publishers, Oct 30. Wengraf, T. (2001), Qualitative research interviewing: biographic narrative and semi-structured methods, London: SAGE. Read More