Qualitative Study - Assignment Example

Review of a Qualitative Study: Understanding an ADHD Diagnosis Introduction This study was conducted by Navarro and Danforth (2004) as an attempt to understand the particulars of how a family dealt with the eldest child’s diagnosis of ADHD without hyperactivity. The study also explores the different factors that play a role in reaching a diagnosis of ADHD, the choice of treatment, and the acceptance of the implications of the diagnosis. The researchers suggest that given the side-effects associated with medical treatment of ADHD as well as the stigma of being labelled, it is necessary to understand how people make and maintain a treatment choice.

Navarro & Danforth (2004) also wish to describe the how people cope with such issues on a long-term basis while continuing to be part of social structures.MethodologyThe researchers used a qualitative methodology that consisted of interviewing people associated with a single diagnosis of ADHD without hyperactivity chosen by using a convenience sampling method. The researchers interviewed the family, the teachers and school principle, and even tried to interview the neurologist who made the diagnosis.

They use an interpretative case study method that includes information from the different interviews, follow-up sessions conducted with the family, standardised test results, academic records, a journal kept by the mother to record the events as well as their own observations. The interviews and observations were recorded and transcribed so that accuracy may not be lost over time. Data was collected for over three years, and the researchers chose to interpret the events in light of the particular contexts of the participants’ experiences in order to evaluate the reasons for different outcomes (Navarro & Danforth, 2004).

Navarro and Danforth (2004) also framed the interpretations within the medical discourse and the academic discourse to better understand the way in which the diagnosis was reached.ResultsNavarro and Danforth (2004) found that the diagnosis of ADHD was used as an explanation for inconsistent academic behaviour on part of the child. Both children seemed to initially equate having ADHD with being stupid or dumb; but develop a more sophisticated understanding over time. The parents played a supportive role and addressing the diagnosis as a hurdle that they could get past; and were most concerned by the possibility of having to give medication that had significant side effects to their child.

The study shows that the parents attempted to review information that both supported and stood against the use of medication for ADHD, but after informing the child, allowed him to make his own decisions. The results also show that personal experience guided two of the teachers to suggesting an ADHD diagnosis for the child; while the others thought that the diagnosis would help him by reducing the pressure he experienced in some classes. Academic records showed that the child did consistently well in subjects that he found interesting, and was inconsistent in the others, but the everyone seemed focussed on the inconsistent work itself rather than the reasons for it.

The neurologist advocated medication, but the child choose against it. Over the course of the study, he has learnt to cope and is well adjusted, possibly due to the support he receives from his family (Navarro & Danforth, 2004).ConclusionNavarro and Danforth (2004) suggest that in context of the research conducted about treating ADHD, it is important to consider the intensity of the problem, the context in which it occurs and the possible implications of medication and other treatments before choosing one.

They also suggest that the social context affects these choices, and thus, responsible intervention should be required from both academic and medical professionals.ReferencesNavarro, V., & Danforth, S. (2004). A Case Study of ADHD Diagnosis in Middle School: Perspectives and Discourses. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 6(2), 111-124.