Abused-to-Abuser Hypothesis: Validity Issues - Essay Example

Abused-To-Abuser Hypothesis: Validity Issues For this paper, a systematic review of existing studies on the abused-abuser hypothesis will be conducted. It is critical to painstakingly assess the methodological quality of the primary studies when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, because if the primary studies are invalid, then conclusions from these reviews cannot be credible too (Cozby, 2012; Creswell, 2009, p.29). Each study should be included or excluded using criteria of quality factors and bias probabilities (Jarde, Losilla, & Vives, 2012, p.98). The inclusion of experiments in systematic reviews is almost always seen as a given in many systematic reviews and the like because of their experimental and empirical methods, while non-experimental studies tend to be questioned because of their potential for higher rater bias (Jarde, Losilla, & Vives, 2012, p.98). Non-experimental research designs, nevertheless, cannot be completely excluded because they can efficiently answer problems and produce practical results for studies that aim to explore the topic and its constructs and research trajectories (Jarde, Losilla, & Vives, 2012, p.98). This essay compares and contrasts the characteristics of external, internal, and construct validity. It also determines threats to external and construct validity, and how validity issues could impact the proposed research. Internal validity pertains to how well a study has been designed, particularly the research design, operational definitions, measurement of variables, determination of what should be and should not be measured, and other important design decisions and details (Mitchell & Jolley, 2010, p.40). For this study, did child sexual abuse truly cause or correlate to development of sexual offending attitudes and behaviors among the sampling or group being studied? McGrath, Nilsen, and Kerley (2011) discovered from their review of literature on profiled juvenile delinquents and adult sexual offenders that the physical and psychological trauma of sexual abuse does not, all the time, amplify the predisposition of children to become future juvenile and adult sexual offenders of children also, although “their chances are greater than for those who are not abused as children” (p.487). The internal validity of the study will be assessed according to the fit of the research design to the tools and analysis used, and if the researchers answered their research question, using appropriate variables and suitable definitions and measures for these variables. For the purposes of this paper, the internal validity of the systematic review can be enhanced through providing relevant details on how the research was conducted and the criteria used for the selection of studies. Systematic reviews are transparent with their research process, particularly how they selected and removed journal articles for their study. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method studies will be used for this paper, as long as they meet quality criteria, and the researchers admit their biases, or their biases can be discerned as low enough to not affect the validity and reliability of their research design and findings. External validity stands for the range to which a studys results can be generalized or become applicable for other people and conditions (Creswell, 2009, p.170). Burton, Duty, and Leibowitz (2011) compared sexually victimized and nonsexually victimized male adolescent sexual abusers on several variables. T hey used self-report measures on 325 male sexually abusive youth (with the average age of 16) in six residential facilities in the Midwest, of whom 55% attested that they experienced sexual victimization. Findings showed that the sexually victimized abusers had serious antecedents and more externalizing behavioral problems that affected their sexual practices and attitudes. Around 47% of the participants were Caucasian and other demographic factors are not discussed and controlled. It is possible that the results of this study can be applied to Caucasian males with physical/sexual traumatic experiences and from violent families and neighborhoods. The same can be said for the studies of Easton et al. (2007) and Walsh, Fortier, and DiLillo (2010) because of their limited sampling. For this paper, external validity can be enhanced by including studies that were conducted in other settings, or nations, as well as other parts of the country. It will strive, for example, to not be limited to studies done on cosmopolitan areas. Construct validity pertains to the extent to which inferences can justifiably be made from the operationalizations in the study to the theoretical constructs, on which those operationalizations were formed from (Mitchell & Jolley, 2010, p.40). Construct validity is also about generalizing, as compared to external validity. While external validity is concerned of generalizing the study in other contexts, settings, or timeframes, construct validity concerns generalizing from the study’s measures to the concept of the study (Mitchell & Jolley, 2010, p.40). In the case of sexual offending behaviors in adults, if long-term outcomes of abuse are measured, does the study truly measure these outcomes using the instruments and suppositions it depended on? (Walsh, Fortier, & DiLillo, 2010, p. 7). Furthermore, labeling should be appropriate to the study. For instance, in the article “The Effect of Childhood Sexual Abuse on Psychosexual Functioning during Adulthood,” did Easton et al. (2011) use the correct correlational statement? Did their study truly measure the effect of child sexual abuse on the later psychosexual functioning of these participants in their study? Convergent and discriminant validity are seen as subcategories or subtypes of construct validity. Convergent validity means that the measures of constructs that theoretically should be connected to each other are, in fact, perceived to be related to one another. Similar constructs can be corresponded or converged (Mitchell & Jolley, 2010, p.184). Discriminant validity refers to the condition that that the measure does not strongly correspond to measures of diverse constructs (Mitchell & Jolley, 2010, p.184). If they are not theoretically related, then they should be observed as related to one another (Mitchell & Jolley, 2010, p.184). For the convergent validity of this study, the construct of child abuse must be closely measured in relation to the sexual offending behaviors of adults. Without this connection, convergent validity will be low. As for discriminant validity, this study must ensure that it is not measuring something other than child sexual abuse. It must differentiate child sexual abuse from other abuses, such as physical and emotional abuses. How these factors interact, nevertheless, can impact the relationship between child sexual abuse and sexual offending as adults. The threats to the external validity of this study are an interaction between how the subjects were chosen and the research methodology can occur (Mitchell & Jolley, 2010, p.286). For instance, if the articles are not randomly selected from an extensive source of empirical studies, then their particular features can affect the quality of the research. In addition, there is concern that not all empirical studies will be included because of limited time and resources, which when not added to the research, can affect the external validity of the research outcomes. Several databases will be used for this research, which should hopefully produce relevant studies, including those conducted on other countries, timeframes, and samplings. On the part of the studies being assessed, their external validity will be compromised, if the specific characteristics of the sampling can affect their performance. As a result, the findings cannot be applied to the population or another group that more precisely stands for the populations’ defining characteristics that are relevant to the study (Mitchell & Jolley, 2010, p.286). The studies chosen should also be careful assessed for their research methods. Pretesting can affect their reaction to the study. For instance, if the subjects experienced similar studies already, their reaction to another study might be stronger or weaker, which can affect the data they provide to the researchers (Mitchell & Jolley, 2010, p.286). At the same time, those who did not experience pretesting are not always free from other biases to research studies (Mitchell & Jolley, 2010, p.286). These considerations must be observed in the empirical studies used for this study. Pretesting or the lack of it can have different effects on how respondents measure and report their experiences. The setting conducted during the study may impact the research process too. For example, for the studies being reviewed, if subjects know that they are participants in a study, or who are conscious of being observed, they may react in a different way to the study than a subject who experienced the study, but is not overly conscious of it at all. The studies on the abused-to-abuser hypothesis may have setting effects, also called Hawthorne effect. The role of the Hawthorne effect must be discussed for these studies. One of the threats to construct validity of this study is the insufficient preoperational clarification of constructs. Preoperational refers to the translation of the constructs into measures. The explanation should be enough to capture the construct being measured. To address this, some of the potential solutions are thinking about the concepts, using methods that clearly define the concepts, and asking experts to criticize the operationalizations. Biases for the operation and the variable may also happen, which can impact construct validity. The bias can happen when it is assumed that the review design is already valid, while other factors are not yet considered. McLeroy et al. (2012) offered reporting guidelines used in peer-refereed journals, which will help improve the validity of this paper. Mono-variable bias can be prevented by considering other factors that lead to abused-to-abuser hypothesis. The existence of other mediating and control variables can be explored in the limitations part of the study. Restricted generalizability is also a concern. Generalizations should be made, where other potential consequences are considered. At the same time, other factors must be considered when making the findings and conclusions. Several studies explore diverse theories for explaining the validity, or lack thereof, of the abused-to-abuser hypothesis. These studies can explore diverse and opposing viewpoints, which can enrich the theoretical framework of the hypothesis and point to future studies. Researcher bias can shape the construct validity of the paper too. The researcher is admittedly affected by how child sexual abuse can lead to future sexual offenses against children. The impact of the topic on the affect of the researcher can be reduced by maintaining the high standards and criteria of the systematic review. The following aspects are important considerations that can result to the reduction of researcher bias in data collection and analysis processes: 1. Design issues and methods. Justification of study design choices; assignment protocols and procedures. 2. Interventions. Use of theory to guide interventions; provision of concrete details about the intervention itself; evaluation of implementation fidelity. 3. Validation. Description of context, differential effects, and multilevel processes; identification of potential sources of bias and threats to internal validity; assessment of external validity. (McLeroy et al., 2012, p.783). These efforts that are approved by several research papers can effectively manage biases and improve the validity of this paper. References Burton, D.L., Duty, K.J., & Leibowitz, G.S. (2011). Differences between sexually victimized and nonsexually victimized male adolescent sexual abusers: Developmental antecedents and behavioral comparisons. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 20(1), 77-93. Connolly, M., & Woollons, R. (2008). Childhood sexual experience and adult offending: an exploratory comparison of three criminal groups. Child Abuse Review, 17(2), 119-132. Cozby, P.C. (2012). Methods in behavioral research (Kindle Edition). New York: McGraw-Hills. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. California: SAGE. Easton, S., Coohey, C., O’Leary, P., Zhang, Y., & Hua, L. (2011). The effect of childhood sexual abuse on psychosexual functioning during adulthood. Journal of Family Violence, 26(1), 41-50. Jarde, A., Losilla, J.M., & Vives, J. (2012). Suitability of three different tools for the assessment of methodological quality in ex post facto studies. International Journal of Clinical Health & Psychology, 12(1), 97-108. Jespersen, A.F., Lalumière, M.L., & Seto, M.C. (2009). Sexual abuse history among adult sex offenders and non-sex offenders: A meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(3), 179-192. McGrath, S.A., Nilsen, A.A., & Kerley, K.R. (2011). Sexual victimization in childhood and the propensity for juvenile delinquency and adult criminal behavior: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(6), 485-492. McLeroy, K.R., Northridge, M.E., Balcazar, H., Greenberg, M.R., & Landers, S.J. (2012). Reporting guidelines and the American Journal of Public Healths adoption of preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. American Journal of Public Health, 102(5), 780-784. Mitchell, M.L., & Jolley, J.M. (2010). Research design explained (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage. Walsh, K., Fortier, M. A., & DiLillo, D. (2010). Adult coping with childhood sexual abuse: A theoretical and empirical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 1−13. Read More