Evaluating a Health - Assignment Example

Assessment 2 Worksheet for Evaluating a Health Research Study Report Instructions: Use this template to record your evaluation of the article that you have critiqued for Assessment 2. See separate instructions for detailed guidance on completing assessment. NOTE: Hide or remove the rows in the summary table, and pages of the detailed critique, not relating to the article chosen for critique. Your summary table should reflect the score and overall assessment given (and supported by evidence) for each component, in the detailed tables to follow. The current row width can be expanded as high as necessary to provide a complete base of evidence. Critic’s Name End-text citation of article critiqued: Kathleen, V., Heidi V., & Karolien, P. (2015). Severe Sexual Harassment on Social Networking Sites: Belgian Adolescents. Views. Journal of Children and Media. 9(4), 472-491. Summary Table Component of evaluation Max score Score Overall assessment of component Part A: Evaluating the Front Matter in a Research Report 12 11 High quality Part B: Evaluating the Statement of the Problem in a Research Report 21 15 Adequate quality Part C: Evaluating the Literature Review in a Research Report 21 7 Low quality Part D: Evaluating a Purpose in a Research Report 21 12 Adequate quality Part E1: Evaluating the Research Design in a Quantitative Research Report 9 Part F1: Evaluating the Participants and Data Collection in a Quantitative Research Report 24 Part G1: Evaluating the Data Analysis and Results in a Quantitative Research Report 21 Part E2: Evaluating the Research Design in a Qualitative Report 12 10 High quality Part F2: Evaluating the Participants and Data Collection in a Qualitative Report 21 15 Adequate quality Part G2: Evaluating the Data Analysis and Findings in a Qualitative Report 21 14 Adequate quality Part H: Evaluating the Conclusion and Back Matter in a Research Report 21 11 Adequate quality Maximum possible score / total score given And Overall assessment 1 Quantitative OR 2 Qualitative 150 129 95 Adequate quality Summary evaluation and justification The key strength of the report is that all aspects of the critiqued article were analyzed. The many sub-sections ensured that all aspects of the article critique were covered. The sub-sections further improved the critique. The other key strength is that a deep analysis was performed when performing critique for all provided aspects and sub-sections. In addition, rich evidence was employed during the critique. The only weakness in this report is that some sections such as discussion were left out and hence not included in the analysis. As the evaluation shows, the quality of the article is good (adequate quality).The findings of the evaluation indicate that this is a well written journal article and has been informed by most recent evidence and also supported by numerous sources. Given the good scoring of the article’s quality as well as the adequate quality, this study is valuable to the target audience and all readers in general. Finally, this article is suitable to be used by other publications in the same field due to its good quality. Part A: Evaluating the Front Matter in a Research Report Quality Criteria Quality Rating Your Evidence and/or Reasoning 0 = Poor 1 = Fair 2 = Good 3 = Excellent HEALTH RESEARCH STUDY SELECTION The Key Elements 1. The study’s authors and journal are reputable. 3 Authors of the article are Kathleen, V., Heidi V., & Karolien, P. Two of the authors (Heidi and Karolien) have PhDs and are associate professors while the third author (Kathleen) has MSc and is a PhD student. Heidi and Karolien are associate professors at University of Antwerp while Kathleen is a PhD student at the University of Antwerp. All authors are affiliated with the University of Antwerp in Belgium. The authors are also affiliated with reputable research institutions and have participated in numerous research projects. All authors have publications in academic journals in their research areas allied to cybercrime, social media, cyber bullying, and other related topics. 2. The title reflects the content and focus of the study. 3 The title, severe sexual harassment on social networking sites: Belgian adolescents’ views indicate that the focus of the article is on sexual harassment in social media and basically this is the key focus of the article’s content. Content data was obtained from adolescents in Belgium and this is clearly illustrated in the article’s title. The article also indicates that the study participants were adolescents and this is also indicated by the title. 3. The abstract concisely but accurately summarizes the aim, methodology and main findings of the report. 2 The abstract provides a brief summary of the article. However, the abstract does not provide the aim of the study. The abstract also outlines the study participants (adolescents aged 12-18 years). Additionally, the abstract provides the methodology used in the study as well as the data collection methods (qualitative data). The study findings have also been reported in the abstract (sexual harassment is severe and there is use of insulting language and sexualized photos in social media sites. Findings also show that social media sites can be used in reducing the effect of sexual harassment through provision of safe environment and by cautioning harassers. General Evaluation 4. The front matter accurately reflects the content of the report and allows an evaluation of relevance. 3 The article has addressed the key components of the front matter and this allows readers to assess the relevance of the article efficiently. Overall Quality Part A 0 - 6 = Low quality 7 - 9 = Adequate quality 10 - 12 = High quality Total Part A Score = 11 My Overall Assessment of Part A = High quality Part B: Evaluating the Statement of the Problem in a Research Report Quality Criteria Quality Rating Your Evidence and/or Reasoning 0 = Poor 1 = Fair 2 = Good 3 = Excellent The Key Elements 1. The topic is interesting. 3 The topic is quite captivating. This is because cyber bullying in social media platforms is quite common nowadays and hence readers are likely to be interested in the reading the article. The first paragraph shows that the topic focuses on adolescents; adolescents are among the most prone groups to sexual harassment on social media platforms. 2. There is a meaningful problem. 3 The problem is sexual harassment of adolescents in social media platforms. The problem addressed in the study is quite significant. This is because currently there are so many cases of sexual harassment among teenagers where there have been cases of suicide among teenagers due to sexual harassment. Therefore, the problem is worth being addressed. 3. The importance of the problem is justified. 2 There is relatively adequate justification by citing evidence and statistics from latest research. For example, “Online sexual harassment is common among youth aged 13–18 years old, with prevalence rates for the past years in the United States ranging from 4 to 38% (Kathleen et al, 2015). This evidence and statistics indicates the seriousness of the problem and why the problem needs to be addressed. However, it would have been appropriate to indicate the rationale for the study. 4. There are deficiencies in the knowledge about the problem. 1 Generally, there is relatively enough literature regarding the research problem. However, this study will also fill a research gap and also support existing literature on the topic. In addition, this study is necessary to learn from people (adolescents) who are particularly affected by sexual harassment in the social media (Bassett & B.issett, 2013). This study was significant because it helped in understanding the views of adolescents on sexual harassment in social networking sites. There is an unbiased discussion of related research. 5. There are audiences who can benefit from the missing knowledge. 2 The knowledge will inform people on adverse consequences of cyber bullying and sexual harassment in social media platforms. In addition, the knowledge will inform regulators of social media platforms regarding the seriousness of sexual serious and hence the respective regulators can implement the appropriate measures to eradicate and minimize sexual harassment through these platforms. General Evaluation 6. The passage clearly argues that the study is warranted. 2 The passage addresses almost all aspects of the content and hence readers will easily understand what is contained in the article 7. The passage is well written. 2 The passage addresses almost all aspects of the content and hence readers will easily understand what is contained in the article. The article transits to the next paragraph relatively well and this is easier for the reader. Overall Quality Part B 0 - 10 = Low quality 11 - 16 = Adequate quality 17 - 21 = High quality Total Part B Score = 15 My Overall Assessment of Part B = Adequate quality Part C: Evaluating the Literature Review in a Research Report Quality Criteria Quality Rating Your Evidence and/or Reasoning 0 = Poor 1 = Fair 2 = Good 3 = Excellent The Key Elements 1. The review includes the relevant literature. 0 The article entirely lacks the section of literature review. However, the study has reviewed many sources justifying the research problem and also explaining the significance of the study 2. The review examines sources that are recent and of high quality. 1 Even though there is no section of the literature review is relatively substantial where the article cites so many sources. The sources include academic journal articles from reputable journals are included. The quality of the sources used is therefore high because most of the sources used for literature review are most recent. There are also studies dated 2015 and this represents most recent evidence 3. The literature review is appropriately documented. 1 There is no section of the literature review but sources used are correctly cited and referenced. Both citation and reference are uniform 4. The literature is thoughtfully synthesized. 0 There is no provision of literature review section. However, the subtopics that have been assumed to contain literature review are organized relatively well. However, the authors generalized the literature review hence it is difficult to interpret the review analysis. 5. The literature is critically examined. 2 As aforementioned, the study lacks literature review section. However, in the presumed literature review sections there is critical analysis of the sources. Different and rich sources have been used to justify statements. In addition, statistics have also been used to validate the opinions of the authors. Generally, the literature has been critically analyzed and evidence used in supporting the arguments General Evaluation 6. The study has a strong foundation in the literature. 1 There is no section for literature review. However, the arguments in the study are supported with adequate sources 7. The use of the literature fits the study's overall research approach. 2 The research approach is qualitative research design. The use of literature fits the study design because extensive sources have been used to support the view of the study participants. The sources used are reasonably strong. However, literature review lacks both structural and thematic organization. Overall QualityPart C 0 - 10 = Low quality 11 - 16 = Adequate quality 17 - 21 = High quality Total Part C Score = 7 My Overall Assessment of Part C = Low quality Part D: Evaluating a Purpose in a Research Report Quality Criteria Quality Rating Your Evidence and/or Reasoning 0 = Poor 1 = Fair 2 = Good 3 = Excellent The Key Elements 1. The study's purpose is clearly specified. 1 The purpose of the study is not succinct but the introductory section of the study clearly outlines the purpose of the study which is to establish interventions to prevent sexual harassment on social media platforms and this is especially in adolescents who are much more affected by sexual harassment in social media. 2. The focus of the study is appropriate. 1 The focus of the study is on variables related to: sexual harassment and interventions to prevent sexual harassment. However, authors have not described regarding the relationship between these two variables and how these two variables complement each other. However, these two aspects are adequately explained and therefore it is easy to understand what the study seeks to examine. 3. The overall intent of the study is appropriate. 2 The overall intent of the study is appropriate. The intent of the study is to find out the most appropriate interventions to prevent sexual harassment in social media. The study also seeks to find out the views of adolescents regarding combating of gender harassment. The study further focuses on the educational strategies that can be used to tackle sexual harassment in social media platforms. The focus on the study intent is consistent to the adopted a qualitative approach. 4. The participants and sites are appropriate. 3 The study participants are adolescents aged between 12 and 18 years. This is suitable because teenage is the most affected group when it comes to sexual harassment in social medial platforms. Normally adolescents are very sensitive and susceptible to negativities and yet they are so active in social media platforms which are full of criticisms including sexual harassment. The sites are networking sites. This is appropriate because it provides the techno-based perspective on the problem (sexual harassment) 5. The purpose is narrowed through appropriate research questions and/or hypotheses. 1 The purpose of the study has not been narrowed into any theory or hypothesis. However, even though the research question is not stated, the purpose of the study at abstract part has indirectly stated the research question: “This study used focus groups to examine sexual harassment on SNSs from adolescents’ (aged 12–18 years) point of view: what do they perceive as severe cases and who do they think should play a role in addressing them”. General Evaluation 6. The purpose follows logically from the statement of the problem and literature review. 3 The purpose of the study following by focusing to shed light regarding the significance of the problem (sexual harassment in social networking platforms) and how interventions can be implemented to minimize and prevent this problem. There is logical flow of the purpose of the study because the key problem is tackled, followed by the intended preventative strategies. 7. The purpose is consistent with the study's overall approach. 2 The focus of the study variables and use of participants’ views to explain the study variables suits a qualitative approach. Overall QualityPart D 0 - 10 = Low quality 11 - 16 = Adequate quality 17 - 21 = High quality Total Part D Score = 12 My Overall Assessment of Part D = Adequate quality Part E1: Evaluating the Research Design in a Quantitative Research Report Quality Criteria Quality Rating Your Evidence and/or Reasoning 0 = Poor 1 = Fair 2 = Good 3 = Excellent The Key Elements 1. The choice of the research design is appropriate and justified. . General Evaluation 2. The study used a rigorous research design. 3. The use of the quantitative research design addressed the study’s purpose. Overall Quality Part E 0- 4 = Lowquality 5- 7 = Adequate quality 8 -9 = High quality Total Part E Score = My Overall Assessment of Part E= Part F1: Evaluating the Participants and Data Collection in a Quantitative Research Report Quality Criteria Quality Rating Your Evidence and/or Reasoning 0 = Poor 1 = Fair 2 = Good 3 = Excellent The Key Elements 1. The sampling strategy is appropriate and justified. 2. The sample size is appropriate and justified. 3. Good quantitative procedures are used to select and assign participants 4. High quality instruments are used to gather data. 5. The data are gathered using ethical quantitative procedures. 6. The data are gathered using standardized quantitative procedures. General Evaluation: 7. The study has a high level of internal validity. 8. The study has a high level of external validity. Overall Quality Part F 0 - 12 = Low quality 13 - 20 = Adequate quality 22 - 24 = High quality Total Part F Score = My Overall Assessment of Part F = Part G1: Evaluating the Data Analysis and Results in a Quantitative Research Report Quality Criteria Quality Rating Your Evidence and/or Reasoning 0 = Poor 1 = Fair 2 = Good 3 = Excellent The Key Elements 1. The data were rigorously scored and prepared. 2. Good descriptive analyses were conducted. 3. Good hypothesis testing procedures were used. 4. The results are comprehensive. 5. The results include sufficient information. General Evaluation: 6. The data analysis represents a good quantitative process. 7. The results provide a good explanation of the study’s purpose. Overall Quality Part G 0 - 10 = Low quality 11 - 16 = Adequate quality 17 - 21 = High quality Total Part G Score = My Overall Assessment of Part G = Part E2: Evaluating the Research Design in a Qualitative Report Quality Criteria Quality Rating Your Evidence and/or Reasoning 0 = Poor 1 = Fair 2 = Good 3 = Excellent The Key Elements 1. A research design guides the conduct of the qualitative study. 2 The qualitative research design enabled collection of data in form of views from the study participants and this provided insight to the study topic. 2. The choice of the research design is appropriate and justified. 2 The choice of the research design is suitable and justified. Authors justify the use of qualitative approach in the study I that the approach can improve understanding on the study topic and also provide insight on the views of the adolescents on the study topic which is sexual harassment in social networking platforms General Evaluation: 3. The study used a rigorous research design. 3 The study used rigorous study design that allowed comprehensive review of secondary data to support the primary data obtained from the study participants. The research has also been linked to the practice development processes on the study topic. In addition, the study design allowed description of the emerging ideas and themes verified with the study participants. 4. The use of the qualitative research design addresses the study’s purpose. 3 This study adopted qualitative research design. This research design was appropriate because it facilitated understanding of the study’s purpose. The study sought to explore the views of adolescents on sexual harassment in social media and hence the research design provided insight into understanding the study purpose. Overall Quality Part E 0 – 6 = Low quality 7 – 9 = Adequate quality 10 – 12 = High quality Total Part E Score = 10 My Overall Assessment of Part E= High quality Part F2: Evaluating the Participants and Data Collection in a Qualitative Report Quality Criteria Quality Rating Your Evidence and/or Reasoning 0 = Poor 1 = Fair 2 = Good 3 = Excellent The Key Elements 1. The sampling strategy is appropriate and justified. 1 The study does not provide the sampling strategy that was used in selecting the study sample. However, there is a description of how adolescents who took part in the study were sampled. They were sampled from different secondary schools. The rationale of sampling in secondary schools is that the target participants were aged between 12-18 and this is the age group likely to be in secondary school. The sample is relatively representative of the population under study. 2. The sample size is appropriate and justified. 2 The sample size used in this study was relatively adequate. This sample size consisted of 83 adolescents and this was relatively big sample size for the study. This sample size is therefore representative of the population (adolescents) in the region under study. The big sample size also increases the range of possible data and forms a better depiction for analysis. Therefore, this sample size is enough. In addition, authors have justified the selection of this sample size because it is the representative sample. 3. The data types are appropriate. 2 Qualitative data type was used for the study. The appropriateness of this data type is that is allowed description and analysis of the adolescents’ perspectives on the study topic (sexual harassment in social media platforms). This type of data also allowed the authors/researcher to adequately answer research questions. 4. The data are gathered using rigorous qualitative procedures. 3 Data was collected using semi-structured questionnaires as well as interviews. These two methods of collecting gather are extremely rigorous. Semi-structured questionnaires allowed respondents to answer their questions intensively and hence allowed comprehensive and rigorous data collection. Questionnaires also enabled recording of the collected data. Interviews allowed rigorous collection of data from the interviewees. Rigor of the interview process was improved through repetition and reframing of the questions to the study participants. 5. Data collection issues are handled ethically and thoughtfully. 3 Ethical protocols were followed throughout data collection procedures. For instance, ethical approval was sought from the Ethical Advisory Committee of the University. In addition, before the commencement of the study, consent was sought from school principals and the adolescents. The study participants were recruited voluntarily from their classrooms and for an adolescent to be eligible for the study, one had to be active in social media platforms and also give an active written consent to take part in the study. Since the adolescents are minors, parents could object their children participating in the study. General Evaluation: 6. The selected participants are information rich. 3 The selected study participants are likely to have a lot of information on the study topic because the topic targets adolescents who use social media platforms and for a participant to be eligible one had to be an adolescent and be an active user of social networking platforms. In addition, study methodology is adequately described. 7. The database provides extensive and credible information about the central phenomenon. 1 The central phenomenon has not been elaborated even though this was briefly mentioned Overall Quality Part F 0 - 10 = Low quality 11 - 16 = Adequate quality 17 - 21 = High quality Total Part F Score = 15 My Overall Assessment of Part F = Adequate quality Part G2: Evaluating the Data Analysis and Findings in a Qualitative Report Quality Criteria Quality Rating Your Evidence and/or Reasoning 0 = Poor 1 = Fair 2 = Good 3 = Excellent The Key Elements 1. The analysis process used rigorous qualitative procedures. 3 Thematic approach was used to analyze the data. The seriousness of cyber-bullying and offline sexual harassment were the themes used to sensitize concept during analysis. A sensitizing concept provides a lens for data analysis and also guides development of thematic groups from the data. Rigor was increased by using a code-recode procedure. 2. Strategies were used to validate the findings. 0 Generally, the study does not have any rigorous strategies for validating the findings 3. The findings include description of the people, places, or events in the study. 3 The findings’ section clearly describes people and events that were involved in the study. People described in this section are the adolescents. Adolescents are the target population. The events in this section involve victim blaming, sexual harassment, and cyber-bullying, among other form of harassments found in social networking platforms. This section clearly describes the relevant people and events involved in the study. 4. The findings include appropriate themes about the central phenomenon. 3 The findings are grouped in accordance with the relevant themes. The themes include: Severity Appraisal Related to Type of Sexual Harassment on SNSs; Situational Factors Influencing the Severity of Sexual Harassment on SNSs; and Who Can Prevent Severe Sexual Harassment on SNSs. There are then sub-themes under each theme. All these themes clearly and succinctly describe all involved aspects. 5. The findings relate multiple themes to each other. 1 The themes are compared with each other. However, correlation of the sub-themes is somehow difficult because sub-themes are diverse General Evaluation: 6. The data analysis represents a good qualitative process. 2 The data analysis is appropriate because data was analyzed and grouped into themes 7. The findings provide a good exploration of the central phenomenon. 2 The findings confirm the study premise which is sexual harassment indeed occurs in social networking platforms. a phenomenological approach was used to gain more understanding on the study topic. Overall Quality Part G 0 - 10 = Low quality 11 - 16 = Adequate quality 17 - 21 = High quality Total Part G Score = 14 My Overall Assessment of Part G = Adequate quality Part H: Evaluating the Conclusion and Back Matter in a Research Report Quality Criteria Quality Rating Your Evidence and/or Reasoning 0 = Poor 1 = Fair 2 = Good 3 = Excellent The Key Elements 1. The major results are identified and summarized. 2 The key results have been identified. The key results include sexual harassment events such as provocative posts to unkind and flattering comments in individual’s posts to having nudes being shared and fake accounts being created for purposely sexual harassment. Finally, the views of adolescents have been emphasized regarding how they feel about sexual harassment in social networking sites. The views also include the feeling of the participants regarding the appropriate interventions to prevent sexual harassment in social media platforms (Kathleen et al, 2015). However, summary of the results has not been provided. This means the main points have not been drawn out. 2. The results are thoughtfully examined in relation to the literature and personal reflections. 0 The assessment of the results comprehensive. However, there are no personal reflections regarding the study findings 3. Appropriate implications of the results for practice are identified and justified. 2 The application of the study results in practice has been justified and explained 4. Thoughtful critiques of the study’s limitations are provided and appropriate for the research approach. 3 All supposed study limitations were illustrated after discussion of the study results. The major limitation is the recommended interventions for the study were proposed by the study participants (adolescents) while the interventions should be informed by experts. The article further elaborates all the limitations for the study and this informs readers and the audience on what to be cautious about. For instance, generalization of the results is not advisable for the results. 5. Suitable implications of the results for future research are identified and justified. 2 The study implications are well articulated and need for further research identified in order to come up with the most effective interventions to address the problem under study. General Evaluation: 6. The interpretations are consistent with the study’s results and limitations. 1 According to the results’ interpretations, the study findings can be generalized but the study limitation‘s is against the generalization of the study results prior to testing using quantitative methods. However, conclusion relate logically to the results. 7. The back matter is appropriate for the study report. 2 The suitability of the back matter to the report is that it corresponds with the study topic, findings and the analysis as well. Overall Quality Part H 0 - 10 = Low quality 11 - 16 = Adequate quality 17 - 21 = High quality Total Part H Score = 11 My Overall Assessment of Part H = Adequate quality References Bassett C & B.issett J. (2013). Reading and critiquing research. BrJ Perioper NriK. 13(4), pp: 162-4. Bigby M &Gadenne A. (2006). Understanding and evaluating clinical trials. J Am Acad Dermatol. 34(1), pp:550-590. Denzin N & Lincoln S. (2011). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N & Lincoln,Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed). London: Sage Publications. Ingham-Broomfield R. (2010). A nurses’ guide to the critical reading of research. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing. 26(1), pp: 102-109. Kathleen, V., Heidi V., & Karolien, P. (2015). Severe Sexual Harassment on Social Networking : Belgian Adolescents. Views. Journal of Children and Media. 9(4), 472-491. Kaplan L. (2012). Reading and critiquing a research article. American Nurse Today. 7(10). Marshall G. (2005). Critiquing a research article. Radiography. 11(1), pp:55-59. Polit, D. & Beck, C. (2008). Essentials of nursing research: methods, appraisal, and utilization. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Ryan F, Coughina M & Cronin P. (2007). Step'by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing. 16(2). Stockhausen L & Conrick M. (2002). Making sense of research: a guide for critiquing a paper. Contemporary Nurse. 14(1), pp: 38-45. Talley M et al. (2013). Conducting an article critique for a quantitative research study: perspectives for doctoral students and other novice readers. Nursing. Research and Reviews. 1(3), pp: 67- 75. Read More