Qualitative and Quantitative Review in Psychology - Research Proposal Example

QUESTION Qualitative and quantitative research designs are two general approaches to conducting research in psychology. Discuss, compare and contrast these two approaches to research as they might be applied to investigation of a topic of your choice (for example, substance abuse, post traumatic stress disorder, and so one). In your discussion, evaluate the strengths, limitations, and appropriate uses of each approach by analyzing the profession literature on these research approaches. Be sure to use proper terms, assumptions and details of the research protocols in your answer. Running head: DISCUSSION OF TWO Discussion of Two General Approaches in Conducting Research Using Qualitative and Quantitative Methodology For Substance Abuse Disorder Syndrome. Table of Contents Approach and Theory Discussion of qualitative and quantitative design………………….. .5 Quantitative design used in researching SUDS and PTSD………………………………… .7 Strengths, limitations and appropriate uses in literature and Assumptions and details of research protocols………………………………………...9 Qualitative design used in researching SUDS and PTSD………………………………….. .9 Strengths, limitations and appropriate uses in literature……………………………....16 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................17 Abstract Although qualitative and quantitative research designs have general approaches, when researching psychological issues each research methodology has contributed valuable information towards the understanding of complex disorders. Qualitative research is the study of human behavior as it relates to small groups of people. The researcher is studying the "why" of behavior as it applies to the chosen group. Usually focus groups and interviews are used. Quantitative research is the ability to scientifically replicate and understand vast amounts of data in a deductive, tangible and significant manner that supports a particular finding. There is a larger sample taken and structured questions are used. This is a more scientific study than qualitative research. Discussion of Qualitative and Quantitative design in Substance Use Disorders Although qualitative and quantitative research designs have general approaches, when researching psychological issues, and in particular, Substance Abuse Disorder, there are instances in literature where the application of each research methodology has contributed valuable information towards the understanding of complex disorders. Quantitative research into substance abuse allows many practitioners, researchers, and educators the ability to scientifically replicate and understand vast amounts of data in a deductive, tangible and significant manner that supports a particular finding. Qualitative research captures the behavior and subtle nuances that occur in particular situations involving individuals. The use of both types of research enhances and show particular strengths and limitations of certain approaches to answering hypotheses. The understanding of both research approaches has produced a synergistic effect in the growth of knowledge and understanding of complex disorders such as Substance Abuse Disorders (SUDS). The empirical understanding of the world is one in which the world is measured and quantified. The quantifiable world has attributes that one is able to measure with an instrument that carries an ontological assumption. Each attribute or variable consists of concrete and non-theoretical data and units of analysis that are empirical in nature. The quantitative approach to research may, therefore, be described as being based upon the reality of the senses or upon truth of what can be observed, recorded, and re-measure usually with a methodological assumption which, tend to be quasi-experimental, experimental and non-experimental. This approach has an element of the philosophy of positivism. Positivism is defined as, “… sensory experience and observation, and thus that all genuine knowledge is to built on strict adherence to empirical methods of verification” (VadenBos, 2006). Quantitative design is an approach to research descended from historical definitions of science and a family of philosophical positions which hold that all meaningful propositions must be reducible to the capability of measuring both validity and reliability of the proposition. The Social Sciences offer the criticism that social phenomena is so complex that it cannot happen out of context, meaning that unless one is directly observing behavior in a specific setting, the behavior cant be measured. In the social sciences, one studies human beings that are continually interacting and are not without some social context. No two persons share one situation, one culture, or way of being. Theoretical implications in research are connected with exploration and follow a qualitative design. The Qualitative approach to research is a way to test perception from a certain point of view and may discover a method to ask questions within context of a particular situation. Consequently the questions asked in a qualitative approach are influenced by the society, culture, and participants involved. Each influence contributes to the phenomena under study and to the findings or discovery. The thought process followed when investigating a research question can be inductive or deductive. Deductive reasoning is most often associated with an empirical inquiry. The process of narrowing the possible answers down to one testable hypothesis will require data that is measurable and causal in nature. Observations of cause and effect can be enlightening and create a solid foundation for certain areas of research in SUDS. Determining the independent and dependent variables involved in a process, and how each factor may work, are helpful in understanding the medical reasons for individuals who may be and genetically predisposed to addiction in SUDs. This is possible due to the deductive nature of quantitative inquiry and is an appropriate approach to many populations that have measurable common attributes. Quantitative design in Substance Use Disorder Syndrome (SUDS) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder(PTSD) A quantitative approach is used in many medical and genetic studies. Such studies are helpful in understanding the genetic connection underlying substance abuse disorders. For example, one study researched how phenotypes and etiology worked to develop and detect specific genes associated with psychopathological and cognitive impairment in twin and family studies. (Faraone, et al. 2008). This current research used earlier studies as a basis for inquiry as stated by Cloniger, et. al. : “Family, twin, and adoption studies indicate that genes play a significant etiologic role in the development of substance use disorders [SUDS]" (1987). Since it is likely that multiple genes, each of small effect, combine to cause SUDS, they may not be detectable without reducing measurement error and creating measures that more directly asses the genotype and its consequences (Faraone et al, 1995; Tsuang et al, 1993). This reduction of factors to understand the co-morbidity of psychopathology with SUDS can be measured or found significantly higher with genetic underpinnings through DNA. This idea is consistent with two bodies of evidence. First, many forms of substance use have been shown through twin and family studies to share genetic risk factors with several forms of psychopathology. Second, two twin studies have shown that although individual SUDS may have some unique sources of genetic etiology, much of the genetic susceptibility to SUDS can be explained by a common genetic diathesis (Compton et al, 2005, Kendler et al, 2003, Kendler et al, 2003: Tsuang et al, 1998 as referenced in Faraone). Taken together, these findings suggest that genetic predisposition to SUDS may be indexed by a clinical feature external to the diagnosis of SUDS. These clinical features are typically associated with psychopathology that include symptom and evidence of adaptive and cognitive impairments. Without the quantifying data and understanding of this genetic predisposition, there would not really be an understanding of the disease concept of substance abuse. The understanding of the cognitive impairments involved are crucial to the therapy of SUDS and is the key element in helping the patient or clients to obtain some sort of self-efficacy in their treatment. Understanding cognitive impairments is a way for a SUDS patient to navigate beyond genetics and enlist the help of science and medicine to create a neurological balance. This can be achieved through psychotropic medications, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) or any therapy that helps with these cognitive impairments. Despite progress made in understanding the disorder, quantitative research does not account for environmental, perspective, and contextual paradigms of the phenomena at hand. There are many critiques of the scientific method with regard to empiricism and positivism as stated in these common critiques: The common issues in these critiques are (a) the faults of the positivist philosophy of science; (b) the faults of laboratory experimentation: (c) the faults of psychology’s theory of measurement and error; (d) the sometimes dubious claims regarding the preeminence of objectivity; (e) the reductionist tendencies to focus on micro level directional, mechanical—casual hypotheses stated in terms of abstract variables rather than natural, context-situated processes; and (f) the search for predominately linear relations among variables. (McGrath and Johnson 2003) Strengths, limitations and appropriate uses in literature Although the cited studies focused on families and twins there are some limitations in the study. For instance, from a family study, we cannot determine if familial associations between parent and child factor scores is due to genes or to shared environmental risk factors, or some combination of the two. (Faraone et al. 2008, pg. 105) Assumptions and details of research protocols The information for this study was collected to investigate other primary hypotheses. That means that the data was collected and analyzed by different teams for different purposes. Such data may be skewed by the subject selection in the original studies or could have been taken out of context and therefore change the meaning of the underlying observations in the study. Our study should be interpreted within the context of several limitations. Because our pro bands were clinically referred, our results may not generalize to population samples. In addition, this a secondary analysis of several data sets, each of which had been collected to test other primary hypotheses. (Faraone et al., 2008. p. 105) Qualitative design used in researching Substance Use Disorder Syndrome and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder An inductive thought process is more in line with research using a qualitative design. This type of inquiry arises from Post-Positivism and attempts to account for phenomena that cannot be seen in contrast to the quantitative type of inquiry. Post positivism states that there is not just an observable reality. Egon Guba (1978), in his classic treatise on naturalistic inquiry, identified two dimensions along which types of scientific inquiry can be described: (1) the extent to which the scientist manipulates some phenomenon in advance in order to study it and (2) the extent to which constraints are place on outputs, that is, the extent to which predetermined categories or variables are used to describe the phenomenon under study. He then defined ‘naturalistic inquiry’ as a ‘discovery-oriented’ approach that minimizes investigator manipulation of the study setting and place no prior constraints on what the outcomes of the research will be. (Patton 2002, pg. 39) Having design flexibility and using inductive thought processes is all part of understanding the qualitative design. Qualitative design helps to find the questions to ask through the perspectives of both researcher and participant. These questions will be relevant to the culture and phenomena the researcher is studying. Researchers use samplings that include fieldwork, interviews, conversations, and focus groups to work with small groups. According to Schwandt, this approach allows an “insight understanding” (Schwandt [2000:102]): “The idea of acquiring and ‘inside’ understanding—the actors’ definitions of the situation—is a powerful central concept for understanding the purpose of qualitative inquiry.” (Patton, 2002, p. 51) The researcher uses their own experience and insight and try to give ‘objectivity and subjectivity’ to the world as they see it. Crotty (1998) elaborates major theoretical perspectives as the foundations of social research: positivism (and post positivism), interpretivism (which includes phenomenology, hermeneutics, and symbolic interactionism), critical inquiry, feminism, and postmodernism (to which he adds an ‘etc.’ to suggest the open-ended nature as such a classification). Creswell (1998) also settled on five traditions of qualitative inquiry, which he defines as biography, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study. Jacob (1987) settled on another set of five for qualitative taxonomy, which include ecological psychology, holistic ethnography, ethnography of communication, cognitive anthropology and symbolic interactionism. (Patton 2002, p. 132) There are many “theoretical traditions” in qualitative research and methods of inquiry. The “Ethnography” is invaluable in the understanding of complex, cultural and situated occurrences of substance abuse involved in American Indian substance abuse issues. An example in the literature would be Creswell’s five traditions studied in psychology as “Ethnography and Phenomenology”. Such studies have the following characteristics: Natural setting, researcher as key instrument of data collection, multiple data sources, analysis of data inductively, focus on participants’ perspectives their meanings, their subjective views, framing of human behavior and belief within a social-political/historical context or through a cultural lens, emergent rather than tightly prefigured design, fundamentally interpretive inquiry. (Creswell 2007, p. 38) Research with Creswell’s five approaches has many aspects of qualitative research. I have focused on Grounded theory because of the in-depth interviews and a small piece of a Case Study. Although Grounded Theory can stand alone as a research method, Creswells work focused on a mixed design which addresses both qualitative and quantitative aspects of a phenomenon. Grounded Theory can be used to document the experience of parents and family that are part of the environment of the SUDS individual. This type of study will give a greater understanding of themes such as “confusion with substance abuse problem, imbalance in the home, negativity experienced by parents – suicidal thoughts or death wish, support and treatment both information and emotional support, coping, stress of living with SUDS, disruption” (Salter and Clark 2004). This is paraphrased to understand the how the environment is impacting the family group In, The Impact of Substance Misuse on the Family: A Grounded Theory Analysis of the Experience of Parents researchers found that: Within the family literature, the emphasis seems to have shifted somewhat from older theories, which tended to hold the family responsible for the substance misuses problems of its members (eg. Blechman, 1982; Cermack, 1986 as quoted by Salter & Clark, 2004). Despite this, Copelo (1999) indicates that some professionals and researchers still hold such views, which can make it more difficult to understand the needs of relatives in their own right, and to deliver these needs. Despite the difficulties that still exist (in terms of blaming families rather than targeting their needs,), it is increasingly more recognized that living with someone who has a serious drinking or drug problem can be very stressful for families and often this stress is long lasting (Jackson, 1954; Velleman and Orford, 1990; Dorn et al, 1994 as quoted in Salter and Clark 2004) This is a change from previous research, which even to this day, there seems to be a great deal of blame cast upon the family and in the previous research. One of the major problems reported was the disruption that the substance misuse caused to the family. Essentially this was due to the disruptive nature of the user, who was often unpredictable, and disrupted family events or got involved in criminal/thieving activity (to fund the habit), as well as frequently moving in and out of the family home. This finding strongly corresponds to that of Velleman et al (1993), who reported disruption as being part of one of the three major themes to emerge from their qualitative analysis (Salter and Clark 2004). Many times family members want to separate themselves from the substance abusers behavior for their own survival. Families will need the support of outside agencies or counselors to help them recognize that they can still be a strong family if they dont allow themselves to be involved with the substance abusers behavior. Assumptions and details of research protocols The information gained from the interviews was that there were many applicable theories available to help the family, but there were other themes emerging that led them to other coping methods and strategies. Many of these strategies were not yet published or fully understood as a phenomenon that needed attention. According to Strauss and Corbin (1990), Grounded Theory analysis is different from other methods in the sense that it allows the generation of theory that closes approximates the reality it represents, rather than the testing of theory. The inductive nature of this method assumes an openness and flexibility of approach, which is advantageous since it allows the researcher to follow the leads gained from the data. (Strauss and Corbin 1990) The family literature is quite old regarding this issue and so they used the major theories of Orford and Velleman (2003) to adopt both quantitative and qualitative information on a study that compared coping methods and impact on the family. Orford (1998) studied how supported the families felt in dealing with these issues. Macdonald et al (2002) showed how families dealt with the negative impact of drug use. This focus group was that of parent’s of substance abusers with four major themes. These themes were followed by concepts and sub-themes. There researchers used the following themes: “Confusion/lack of awareness,” “Imbalanced/pervasion” of the problem, “heightened negative emotions” and “Family support/treatment.” According to Vellman, “many of the concepts described above are comparable with those described in the stress-strain-coping-support model” (Velleman et al, [1998] as quoted in Salter and Clark 2004) The researchers started with four themes, but as they went through the research, nine themes emerged. These additional themes may be an indication that more needed to be done in this area or that they had focused on previous theory and it may have blocked some of the emerging information. The researchers also used a drug and alcohol agency with a family support organization as a basis of information. They used semi-structured interviews to ask about the impact parents had on the family. The interviews were put on Microsoft WORD and the data was analyzed for themes and subthemes that emerged in addition to what they had previously seen.. Case Study Another qualitative method is the Case Study and is phenomenological in nature. The research in A qualitative case study of interest in the sexual addiction and SUDS was the case study compiled by Turner-Shults, N. (2002). The study deals with the history of the family and the tendency of two sexually addicted women with SUDS, to enter into harm seeking behavior. They further explored the cycle of shame and blame and how it plays a role in the phenomena of abuse and sexual addiction. In, A Qualitative Case Study of Two Chemically Dependent Women with Compulsive Sexual Behaviors by Turner-Shults found: Among knowledgeable treatment professionals the link between chemical dependency in the family and child sexual victimization is almost undisputed. It is now equally clear that untreated childhood victimization and the resulting long-term consequences are a powerful contributing factor to relapse in women who are recovering from chemical dependency (Schneider, [1991]as quoted in Turner-Shults, 2002). Clinicians have also observed that a significant percentage of chemically dependent women who have no recollection of childhood sexual abuse exhibit very similar traits and characteristics of those who recall abuse (Turner-Shults 2002) The purpose of this case study was to help understand those women who didn’t remember sexual abuse but who had a harmful way of acting out sexual feelings and behaviors. When adding substance abuse to their other behaviors, they were not only putting their lives at risk, but the lives of their partners. Researchers also looked at what happened when the womens family of origin had a parent or parents that were chemically dependent, and a review of the literature was used to create the core pathology of the family. Chemicals can play an important role in setting off abusive events by lowering inhibitions. Alcohol tends to break down the barriers and furnish the user with inaccurate feedback regarding self (Bepko & Krestan, 1985; Kunzman, [1990] quoted in Turner-Shults, 2002). Research also found that when a person is sexually addicted and continues to drink, they may go to greater and greater lengths to improve their sense of personal or sexual adequacy. The unpredictable behavior of the intoxicated parent contributes to the individuals feeling of constantly being in a state of hyper-vigilance and emergency (Turner-Shults 2002, p. 234) Because of the nature of sexual addiction, there were two emerging themes from this second study and in the literature. These two themes are “over-sexualization” and a condition in which the actual act of having sex provokes fear in the individual and requires the use of alcohol before sex to have a relationship with a partner. Over-sexualization in the female “…occurs when a woman uses sex in order to be held, to relieve tension, to hide from feelings, to create a false bond of intimacy, to express anger, or to feel powerful (Kasl, 1989)" .Sexually addicted women set an addictive cycle in motion in which their primary source of power is sexual conquest and so they fulfill their need for touch and tenderness through the act of sex. These are women who have become addicted to seduction, to the hunt, and to feelings of having made a sexual conquest (Kasl, [1989] as quoted in (Turner-Shults, 2002) Underneath the addiction is a desperate need to escape from the devastating feelings of shame and worthlessness. (Kasl, 1989 as quoted in Turner-Shults) The participants in this study were selected purposefully and are both recovering alcoholics. They have remembered abuse, either emotional or verbal, without any memories of sexual abuse. But, as stated earlier, they follow a pattern in their families of isolation, hopelessness and general upheaval from the family dynamics in which a parent maybe an enabler and communication is really not happening due to the levels of denial. Strengths, limitations and appropriate uses in literature Two strengths in this study were the amount of information collected and the ability to understand the character of trauma endured from sexual abuse. The researchers explained why sexual acting out was necessary and how the use of chemical dependency functioned in the coping of two individuals with compulsive sexual behaviors. One of the limitations is that the researcher had bias in her observations. For example she states: Further, I have found female addicts to be especially challenging to treat due to the fact that many of them believe that they have to behave in a certain manner in order to be lovable and, therefore, loved. Other female addicts act out their pathology becoming sexual ‘predators’ and these behaviors come with another set of problems that are equally troublesome (Turner-Shults, N. 2002, p. 238) This attitude may have created a bias in her report because it seemed that she was feeling uncomfortable with women who are predators. She may be assuming that predators use people, and even in post recovery from alcoholism they might relapse. (Turner-Shults, N 2002) From a feminist perspective, this attitude may hamper the research since the focus was on what is right with these women, rather than what is wrong. The study seemed to say that their treatment is hopeful and doesn’t follow a statistic that says they will never be chemically free. Conclusion In conclusion, the generalized approach of psychological issues through qualitative research, have addressed complex disorders that have many components. The case study and Grounded Theory Approach are evidence of this research. Both approaches needed an in-depth interview process to really understand the complexity of SUDS. The study about genetics and SUDS using quantitative research design, created a measurement of genetic propensity towards SUDS, although more knowledge was gained, the environmental part of the equation was not able to be examined. The qualitative with it’s rich contextual information and the quantitative using medical evidence is something that perhaps in the future may find the gene that creates or contributes to SUDS. Both applications have great implications for future understanding of this complex disorder. References Bepko, C., & Krestan, J. A. (1985). The responsibility trap: A blueprint for treating the alcoholic family. New York: The Free Press. Blechman, E. (1982). Conventional wisdom about familial contributions to substance abuse. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 9, 35-53. Bremner, D. J. (1999). Acute and chronic responses to psychological trauma: Where do we go from here? The American Journal of Psychiatry, 156(3), 349-351. Brooks, C. S., Zuckerman, B., Bamforth, A., Cole, J., & Kaplan-Sanoff, M. (1994). Clinical issues related to substance-involved mothers and their infants. Infant Mental Health Journal, 15(2), 202-217. Camic, P. M., Rhodes, J. E., & Yardley, L. (2003). "Naming the stars: Integrating qualitative methods into psychological research," In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design. (pp. 3- 15)American Psychological Association. Cermak, T. (1986). Diagnosing and Treating Co-Dependence. Minneapolis, Johnson Institute Books. Chaikin, N. D., & Prout, M. F. (2004). Treating complex trauma in women within community mental health. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(2), 160-173. Cloninger, C.R., 1987. Neurogenetic adaptive mechanisms in alcoholism. Science 236, 410–416. Compton, W.M., Thomas, Y.F., Conway, K.P., Colliver, J.D., 2005. Developments in the epidemiology of drug use and drug use disorders. Am. J. Psychiatry 162, 1494–1502. Copello, A. (1999). Alcohol and the family. Medical Council on Alcohol, 18 (5). Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. London: Sage. Dorn, N., Ribbens, J., and South, N. (1994). Coping with a Nightmare: Family Feelings about Long-Term Drug Use. Institute for the study of drug dependence. Faraone, S., Kremen,W., Lyons, M., Pepple, J., Seidman, L., Tsuang, M., 1995. Diagnostic accuracy and linkage analysis: how useful are schizophrenia spectrum phenotypes. Am. J. Psychiatry 152, 1286–1290. Faraone, S. V., Adamson, J. J., Wilens, T. E., Monuteaux, M. C., & Biederman, J. (2008). Familial transmission of derived phenotypes for molecular genetic studies of substance use disorders. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 92(1-3), 100-107. Fisher, C.B. (2004). Ethics in Drug Abuse and Related HIV Risk Research Applied Developmental Science 10:4, 172-173 Foa, E. Keane, T. Friedman, M (2000). Practice Guidelines from the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies: Effective Treatments for PTSD. New York: Guilford Press Geraerts, E., Arnold, M. M., Stephen Lindsay, D., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., & Hauer, B. (2006). Forgetting of prior remembering in persons reporting recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. Psychological Science, 17(11), 1002-1008. Geraerts, E., Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., Smeets, E., & van Heerden, J. (2006). Dissociative symptoms and how they relate to fantasy proneness in women reporting repressed or recovered memories. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1143-1151. Goldsmith, R. E., Barlow, M. R., & Freyd, J. J. (2004). Knowing and not knowing about trauma: Implications for therapy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41(4), 448-463. Guba, E. (1978). Toward a Methodology of Naturalistic Inquiry in Educational Evaluation. CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation No. 8. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California: LA. Hien, D. A., Cohen, L. R., Miele, G. M., Litt, L. C., & Capstick, C. (2004). Promising treatments for women with comorbid PTSD and substance use disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161(8), 1426-1432. Jacob, E. (1987). “Qualitative Research Traditions: A Review.” Review of Educational Research 57 (1): 1-50 Jackson, J. K. (1954). The adjustment of the family to the crisis of alcoholism. Quarterly Journal Studies Alcohol, 15, 562-586. Johnson, S. L. (2004). Therapists guide to clinical intervention: The 1-2-3s of treatment planning. Amsterdam: Boston Elsevier. Kasl, C. (1989). Women, sex, and addiction. New York: Ticknor & Fields. Kendler, K.S., Jacobson, K.C., Prescott, C.A., Neale, M.C., 2003. Specificity of genetic and environmental risk factors for use and abuse/dependence of cannabis, cocaine, hallucinogens, sedatives, stimulants, and opiates in male twins. Am. J. Psychiatry 160, 687–695. Kernberg, O. F. (2004). "Borderline personality disorder and borderline personality organization: Psychopathology and psychotherapy". In J. J. Magnavita (Ed.), Handbook of personality disorders: Theory and practice (pp. 92-119). Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kunzman, K. A. (1990). The healing way: Adult recovery from childhood sexual abuse. New York: Harper & Row. Levy, K. N. (2005). The implications of attachment theory and research for understanding borderline personality disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 959–986. Lin, N., Toomey, R., Eaves, L., 1998. Co-occurrence of abuse of different drugs in men. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 55, 967–972. Linehan, M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York: Guilford Press. Macdonald, D., Russell, P., Bland, N., Morrison, A., and De la Cruz, C. (2002). Supporting families and careers of drug users: A review. Scottish Executive - Effective Interventions Unit. Marcenko, M. O., Kemp, S. P., & Larson, N. C. (2000). Childhood experiences of abuse, later substance use, and parenting outcomes among low-income mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70(3), 316-326. McGlashan, T. H., Grilo, C. M., Skodol, A. E., Gunderson, J. G., Shea, M. T., Morey, L. C., Zanarini, M. C., & Stout, R. L. (2000). The collaborative longitudinal personality disorders study: Baseline axis I/II and II/II diagnostic co-occurrence. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 102(4), 256-264. McGrath, J. E., & Johnson, B. A. (2003). "Methodology makes meaning: How both qualitative and quantitative paradigms shape evidence and its interpretation," In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 31-48). American Psychological Association. Moulds, M. L., & Bryant, R. A. (2002). Directed forgetting in acute stress disorder. Journal of abnormal psychology, 111(1), 175-179. Najavits, L. M. (2004). "Assessment of trauma, PTSD, and substance use disorder: A practical guide" in J. P. Wilson, & T. M. Keane (Eds.), in Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD (2nd ed.). (pp. 466-491). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. Najavits, L.M. (2002). Seeking Safety: A Treatment Manual for PTSD and Substance Abuse. New York, NY. Guilford Najavits, L. M., weiss, R. D., shaw, S. R. , & Muenz, L. R. (1998). “Seeking Safety”: Outcome of a new congnitive-behavioral psychotherapy for women with posttraumatic stress disorder and substance dependence. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 11, 437-456. Najavits, Lisa M., Weiss, Roger D., Shaw, Sarah R (1999) A clinical profile of women with posttraumatic stress disorder and substance dependence. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 0893164X, 19990601, Vol. 13, Issue 2 National Institute of Mental Health. (2003). Research on the Reduction and Prevention of Suicidality. Retrieved January 21, 2008 from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-03-161.html Orford, J., Natera, G., Davies, J., Nava, A., Mora, J., Rigby, K., Bradbury, C., Copello, A., and Velleman, R. (1998a). Stresses and strains for family members living with drinking or drug problems in England and Mexico. Salud Mental, 21, 1-13. Orford, J., and Velleman, R. (2003). Alcohol and families. Alcohol Concern Research Forum Papers, September, 2003. Patton, M. (Ed.). (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ross, S., Dermatis, H., Levounis, P., & Galanter, M. (2003). A comparison between dually diagnosed inpatients with and without Axis II comorbidity and the relationship to treatment outcome. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 29(2), 263–279. Rubin, L. J. (1996). Childhood sexual abuse: False accusations of false memory? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27(5), 447-451. Salter, G., & Clark, D. (2004). The impact of substance misuse on the family: A grounded theory analysis of the experience of parents. University of Wales Swansea. Schiraldi, G. R. (2000). The post-traumatic stress disorder sourcebook: A guide to healing, recovery, and growth. Los Angeles, Calif.: NTC Contemporary. Schneider. J. P. (1991). How to recognize signs of sexual addiction. Postgraduate Medicine, 90, (6), 171-182. Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Meta-analysis and everyday life: The good, the bad, and the ugly. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(2), 213. Smeets, T., Geraerts, E., Jelicic, M., & Merckelbach, H. (2007). Delayed recall of childhood sexual abuse memories and the awakening rise and diurnal pattern of cortisol. Psychiatry research, 152(2), 197-204. Stewart, S. H., Grant, V. V., Ouimette, P., & Brown, P. J. (2006). Are gender differences in post- traumatic stress disorder rates attenuated in substance use disorder patients? Canadian Psychology, 47(2), 110-124. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research; Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications. Thomas, P. M. (2005). Dissociation and Internal Models of Protection: Psychotherapy with Child Abuse Survivors. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 42(1), 20-36. Tsuang, M., Lyons, M., Meyer, J., Doyle, T., Eisen, S., Goldberg, J., True, W., Tsuang, M.T., Faraone, S.V., Lyons, M.J., 1993. Identification of the phenotype in psychiatric genetics. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 243, 131–142. Turner-Shults, N. (2002). A qualitative case study of two chemically dependent women with compulsive sexual behaviors. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 9(4), 231. VadenBos, Gary R. (2006). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Washington, DC: APA Velleman, R., Bennett, G., Miller, T., Orford, J., and Tod, A. (1993). The families of problem drug users: a study of 50 close relatives. Addiction, 88 (9), 1281-1289. Velleman, R., Copello, A., and Maslin, J. (1998). Living with Drink: Women who live with problem drinkers. London: Harwood. Velleman, R., and Orford, J. (1990). Young adult offspring of parents with drinking problems: Recollections of parents’ drinking and its immediate effects. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29, 297-317. Whalen, M., Fowler-Lese, K. P., Barber, J. S., Williams, E. N., Judge, A. B., Nilsson, J. E., et al. (2004). Counseling practice with feminist-multicultural perspectives. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 32, 379-389. Yen, S., Shea, T. M., Battle, C. L. Johnson, D. M. et al. (2002). Traumatic exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder in borderline, schizotypal, avoidant, and obsessive- compulsive personality disorders: Findings from the collaborative longitudinal personality disorders study. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 190 (8), 510- 518. Do not put these comments with your paper!!!! My comments for Q1 paper: Okay, what I have attempted to do is change, rearrange and other wise help to "fix" the paper where I could. I have changed the paper here and there to make it more readable. I have done what I could to make it more acceptable, and using the APA Format and such may bring you more points. I think you understand qualitative and quantitative research, but I think you might have become overwhelmed by the "bigness" of it…so I attempted to help sort through that information. There were however some things I couldn’t fix because it is more a personal need from you than a general need. So, Ive outlined these things below. If you choose to fix them, they will be simple fixes and probably wont take you more than a couple hours to do. Ive tried to give you the page numbers and the location of whatever I had a question about so you can go directly to that section. There are a couple things I would question your professor about, because you did what you were supposed to do according to APA style: 1) the words missing from the VadenBos quote--you gave the ellipses (…) as required by APA to leave them those words out. You used the part of the quote that was most relevant to the paper. 2) Avoid singe spaced quotes -- in APA Style, the longer quotes are SUPPOSED to be in a paragraph that is single spaced. See either this website link for long quote information: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/02/. However, on page 293 of the APA Publication Manual, Fifth Edition, it DOES say to double space longer quotes. So, I guess it really depends on which APA reference one uses. You need the page citation on page 10 in the McGrath and Johnson quote. I didnt understand this quote on p. 12(see below). Are you quoting Schwandt or Patton? Its confusing because one or the other needs to be quoted. Ive changed it a little to reflect this information. According to Schwandt, this approach allows an “insight understanding” (Schwandt [2000:102]): “The idea of acquiring and ‘inside’ understanding—the actors’ definitions of the situation—is a powerful central concept for understanding the purpose of qualitative inquiry.” (Patton, 2002, pg. 51) Also, you have to choose one or the other way of formatting the page numbers. In APA, they use p. _. You have used 1998:5 in some places and the page number in other. I know its confusing, because depending on what reference you use, they will show it differently. As I showed you above in the link. However, if the professor is using the 5th Edition of the APA Publication manual, if thats what he wants you to use, then be clear on which method it is. P12 starting with Crotty…was this a direct quote? I didnt think it was so I made it into a paragraph. If its a direct quote, youll need to cite it and separate it. P13 I changed the information about Creswell -- see if this is correct. I figured you were speaking about his work and not necessarily speaking about Ground Theory in general. See if the information here is correct according to Creswell. Throughout the paper, you have a lot of quotes that dont have page numbers. You might want to go back and address this issue, as part of APA format. P. 16 What focus group? I wasnt sure what you were talking about here, so you may want to put in a little more definition of WHAT focus group youre referring to in order to make this sentence clearer. Read through the paper -- you will see that I attempted to clean up language here and there to make it more readable. Ive cleaned up tense challenges and rewarded some things. Make sure that it says what you wanted it to say. P17 -- you need to put in the correct person who did the study. Im assuming its Turner-Shults, but make sure. I also took out the questions that the study asked because they werent necessary to your narrative. Note: You dont have to be so specific because youre showing what you know about qualitative and quantitative research. P18 --was this a different study? Ive said its a second study, but if its not true, then it needs to be fixed to reflect the information. Is it the same study? Also, after Kasl, was that a direct quote? Or is it a paraphrase? If its a direct quote, its awkward to have two direct quotes back to back. You might want to let go of one of them. P 19 -- how does the quote show that the researcher was biased? You might want to comment a little on that after the quote because you kind of left it hanging. Just a sentence would suffice. You have some of that information in the next sentence, but it seems like you "read" a bias that isnt really there???? If she actually said these things, than it should be part of the quote. I changed the paragraph a little to reflect perhaps what youre thinking. See if it works. Just a question overall about the references…did you actually use all the references that you quoted in your reference pages? (I didn’t keep track). On your reference pages, you didnt put a "retrieved" date or a url for the studies. If you have some that are electronic in nature, then you need this information. You have some dates for these, but others I wasnt sure whether you retrieved them or used the regular reference. All in all, I think you had a handle on this, but when it came back with comments it was probably overwhelming too. I agree with you that this is a tough professor. Hopefully between the two of us weve answered all his questions and at least can get you a better grade. If you need to do something else, request me again, and Ill help you from the beginning. Read More