Research Methods and Statistics - Essay Example

In analyzing the article exploring the relationship and effects of hydrotherapy and hydrotherapeutic environment to the engagement levels of people with learning and severe physical disabilities, ten important points emerged as information that were found missing or unavailable in the article reported, which may cause the reader and the authors' audience to question the validity and reliability of the study. 1) Communication level in terms of speech and understanding as the dependent variable of the study was not clearly classified in the study, wherein communication was not operationalized in terms of the study's objectives and hypothesis. It is recommended that in order to effectively and correctly assess the dependent variable's efficacy in determining the communication levels of the participants of the study, the authors should clearly define what is meant by communication per se. That is, communication must be determined based on the different dimensions that surround this concept, which include, among others, the ability of the disabled individual to communicate through speech and nonverbal communication, as well as understand communication from other people, or as the message is being transmitted to him/her. When the dependent variable is clearly determined and defined-that is, effectively operationalized-the authors will be able to state the generalizability of the results of the study in terms of communication, and specifically in the context of the participants' experiences as individuals with either learning or physical disabilities. 2) While communication is just one facet of the variable engagement level, engagement level as a dependent variable was also not clearly stated in the article. In this particular variable, the measures through which communication was identified as such was not only restrictive, but are also limited or few in scope. Identifying engagement level of the self in terms only of rocking and hand-flicking are simple measures that do not cover the entirety of the measure, 'engagement level in terms of the self.' The article left the reader wondering whether the engagement levels were only identified in the terms reported by the authors, or whether there are other measures that they used to quantify engagement levels, and in effect, establish the quantitative relationship between engagement levels and response vis--vis the participant's immersion to hydrotherapeutic environment. In effect, what this observation demonstrates is that engagement level does not translated to communication only, but also an understanding of the activity and corresponding physical action that the individual has given in response to a specific communication prompt. 3) The article reported an increase in the engagement levels of the participants once they have been immersed or exposed to the hydrotherapeutic environment. Although there has been an increase in the engagement levels, three contentions to these findings can be observed. The first contention is that the reported increase in engagement levels are not reliable because of the questionable operationalization of the variables used for the study. Secondly, the study did not also report whether these increase in engagement levels are significant relationships or not. This is a crucial point that must be established in the article, since the increase in engagement levels of the participants will cease to be relevant and important if the reported percentages and increases are not significant in relation to the participants' immersion to the hydrotherapeutic environment. In effect, because the relationship established in the article were not clarified as whether significant or not, the effect and influence of the independent variable from the dependent variables loses its importance, rendering the study and its findings insignificant for the readers. 4) The design of the research study itself should have used a time-series experimental design, comparing the participants' performance during and after the time they have been exposed and immersed to the hydrotherapeutic environment. Through this experimental design, the researchers can truly generalize about the findings of their research. The authors' method of comparison of MTS scores during and after intervention of the hydrotherapeutic environment was not a sufficient measure to conclude that indeed, a hydrotherapeutic environment causes a change in the engagement levels of the participants involved in the study. The advantages of utilizing the time-series experimental design is that the authors can compare the same group they have chosen to participate for the study on the effects of the original intervention that they used to apply to participants versus the hydrotherapy method. Moreover, in an experimental design, all variables are controlled in the sense that there is quality and consistency in the conduct of the different interventions, wherein variables can then become comparable. For example, the therapists' manner of interacting with the participants should remain the same under the two different kinds of intervention, since the only variable change induced in the study is the environment in which the participants are learning. 5) One of the most important objective that remain unfulfilled in the article was that the authors were not able to strongly establish that the relationship between hydrotherapy and engagement levels in a causal manner. Thus, even though the authors reported their findings as contributing to an increase in engagement levels, the significance of the relationship between the variables were not the only consideration, but also on whether the relationship is causal in nature-that is, if hydrotherapeutic environments cause engagement levels to increase. The lack of establishment and strength in demonstrating the acceptance of the study's hypothesis, which posits that hydrotherapeutic environment causes an increase in engagement levels of the participant, is one of the many conceptual and operational problems that the authors have failed to address in their article. Because of this, the validity of the study's findings are questioned, and the acceptability of the study itself becomes questionable as well. An important thing to note, also, however, is that even if the authors have established the causality of the variables' relationship with each other, the turn- out will still be biased, mainly because the causality may not really show whether the relationship is indeed between engagement levels and hydrotherapeutic environment, or caused by another variable, such as therapists' change in behavior and attitude between the two environments in which the participants were exposed and involved with. 6) In relation to the earlier discussion, wherein causality and change in engagement levels might be attributed not to hydrotherapy but to a change in therapists' behavior during the conduct of the study. That is, therapists may have been more congenial and biased towards establishing good rapport and relations with the participant during hydrotherapy sessions, as compared to the regular speech, learning and physical therapy sessions the participants are often involved with. This is somewhat implied in the article, wherein the authors noted the 'enthusiasm' of the therapists during the hydrotherapy sessions, which implies that there can be a potential difference in the therapists' receptivity towards this new method of learning and physical therapy. It is recommended then, that in the conduct of the study, change in therapist's attitude towards hydrotherapy should also be monitored and assessed, and for experimentation, it is crucial that this variable be controlled or at least measured as well since this can greatly affect the results of the study and hypothesis. 7) Another observation that made the study unreliable was the lack of disclosure of the technical details concerning the study conducted. Although the article was geared towards a popular audience, it is also crucial that the readers are also given "hard evidence" that will truly support the statements asserted by the authors. Provision of technical data such as comparison among groups at certain scores or percentages, and representation of the findings through percentages are already enough technical data that will help the readers truly understand the importance and significance of the study as far as learning and physical disability therapy are concerned. Thus, the authors' inability to balance the mode of their reportage and support this sufficiently with technical data resulted to a lack of strength in their arguments for the study's findings. 8) Another variable that was not taken into account during the conduct of the study was to note the level and number of years that the participant has participated in the original speech/physical therapy intervention. This is a crucial information that the authors must disclose, since the variance in the number of years of intervention the participant has received will also result to a difference in the expected level of his/her learning and engagement/communication skills. This variable was not noted in the article, thus readers were not able to fully verify the validity of the study, since the case of Tom, which was mentioned in detail in the article, may be different from other participants. Tom's treatment and intervention exposure may have been longer than other participants, which could explain why he had more improvement in his engagement levels. Thus, if this case is true, then it can be said that possibly, Tom's improvement cannot be solely attributed to his exposure to hydrotherapeutic environment, but possibly, to his greater or lengthier exposure to therapy. 9) There was also no reportage of whether all sessions that were compared and used for analysis during the study were controlled, that is, all variables for the original speech/physical therapy sessions and hydrotherapy sessions were controlled-that is, all variables relevant to the study were held "equal" (except for the method of intervention, which will be tested). In effect, because even the controlling of variables were not reported or possibly, not conducted efficiently, the results become questionable for all variables present in both interventions were not controlled. The interventions cannot be compared, then, as a result of this 'flaw' in the authors' research design. 10) Lastly, the authors' statements and arguments for their study cannot be truly claimed as truly representative of the population they were studying, since there was also no disclosure of the methods that they did in order to ensure that the sample for the study they conducted was of a number and quality that can be said to be representative of the physically and mentally disabled population. The lack of information and disclosure about the research's design, methodology, and analyses leads the readers to question the extent and rigor the authors have provided in order to ensure that the study would truly become reliable and valid, and ultimately, useful for individuals and groups wherein this information would become invaluable. PART 2 Given these important observations on incomplete information and low level of disclosure of data concerning the research conducted, an alternative research design is formulated herein, wherein suggestions for improvement are outlined, both on the research details and composition of the article for use of the general public and specific, concerned groups and individuals. A proposed improvement of the research design would be to create an experimental design, using the time-series experimental design, wherein the same group of participants will be evaluated on changes in their engagement levels for two periods: the first period shall cover MTS scores or results wherein the original therapy or intervention is applied, and the second period shall cover MTS scores and results wherein hydrotherapeutic environment will be applied. Through the experimental design, the researchers will be able to gauge in more definite, quantitative terms the differences between the two interventions/methods. The research can then take a quantitative stance, and can be rendered comparative to other groups as well, at least, as far as therapy environments are concerned. Among the variables that should be taken into account apart from engagement levels and therapy environment are the following: therapists' receptivity to the therapeutic environment to be tested; levels of communication defined in terms of the research's operationalization; and length of years under which the participant has underwent therapy (original form of intervention). Analyses for the study will be at the univariate, bivariate, and multivariate levels. Ultimately, the research's focus would be on establishing not only a significant relationship between engagement levels and therapeutic environment, but also a causal relationship between the two. Although establishing a causal relationship is a difficult endeavor, this is an important objective and hypothesis that should be considered in the study in order to fully validate the results of the study, making it a reliable source of information for future studies on interventions and therapies concerning learning- and/or physically-disabled individuals. Reportage of the study findings would be dependent on the type of audience through which the information/findings will be communicated. For a popular audience, technical data will be disclosed, but will be communicated in simpler terms, and in a more general, definitive manner, as compared to journal articles geared specifically at researchers and therapists. Read More