Health Medical Homework Help

Respond to at least two colleagues by explaining how that colleague might rule out one of the confounding variables that they identified

Be sure to use references

DB 1—

Vashantonia—

Discussion: Selection of a Statistical Analysis Approach

An outcome evaluation was completed on a vocational rehabilitation program developed for prison inmates that were recently paroled. A Chi-square research design was selected for this study. Sixty participants were selected with an intervention group consisting of 30 participants who received services from the program. The comparison group consisted of 30 participants who were placed on a waiting list. Researchers compared the employment results of the intervention group to the comparison group (Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen S., 2014b). A total of 59 participants provided data to be entered into the SPSS system for statistical analysis.

My interpretation of the study is that there was a considerable difference between the intervention group and the control group because the intervention group had a 40% higher full-time employment rate. There were some limitations to the study that led to the comparison group having a significantly lower number of participants that obtained full-time employment (Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen S., 2014b).

Factors limiting the internal validity

Trochim, W.M.K., (2006), defines internal validity as the approximate truth about inferences regarding cause-effect or causal relationships. Internal validity is only relevant in studies that attempt to establish a causal relationship between two or more variables. There are factors that may raise doubt in that the independent variable may cause the results of the study. These factors must be considered when evaluating the internal validity of the study (Meltzoff, J., & Cooper, H., 2018). A factor that may limit the internal validity of the study is selection bias of the participants. There was not enough information provided to determine how the intervention group was selected. This may have contributed to selection bias in the study.

References

Meltzoff, J., & Cooper, H. (2018). Research designs and threats to internal validity. In Critical thinking about research: Psychology and related fields., 2nd ed. (pp. 97–116). American Psychological Association. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1037/000…

Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen S. (Eds.). (2014b). Social work case studies: Concentration year. Baltimore, MD: Laureate International Universities Publishing. [Vital Source e-reader].

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Internal validity. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/intval.php

DB2—

Ashley—

Interpretation of the case study conclusion:

In the case study, an outcome evaluation of a new vocational rehabilitation program for recently paroled prison inmates was conducted with the goal of the program being to facilitate maximum employment possible among participants. Results of the quasi-experimental research design found a difference between the intervention and comparison groups to be highly significant with the p value being .003 thus indicating that the vocational rehabilitation intervention program may be effective at promoting full-time employment among recently paroled inmates (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014b).

Dudley (2020) notes there are three conditions that must be met for a causal relationship to be determined which are that the program intervention must precede clients’ improved outcomes, that there is an association found between the introduction of the intervention and the client’s improvement in their outcome measures, and claiming the cause of the client’s improvements is from the intervention. Due to the participants being recently paroled, it can be assumed they did not have stable employment, but evidence showed that the intervention preceded success in finding employment compared to those in the comparison group indicating there is an association between intervention and outcomes. In the case study, the above conditions were met through completion of a chi-square test that established significance.

Factors limiting internal validity:

Dudley (2020) discusses that internal validity address whether the intervention and no other factors are responsible for improvement in the outcome variable. Limitations were discussed in the study including no use of random assignment and a potential for differences to be associated with preexisting differences among the participants such as selection bias (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014b). Other factors that could limit the internal validity include the length of time that the study was conducted over because if it were implemented over a longer period of time, the comparison group may not have such a large difference in employment status as they may independently find jobs during the wait period. Subject variability can also be an impacting factor as the sample size in the study was smaller, so patterns with different ethnic, age, and other subgroups may not have been examined.

Resources:

Dudley, J. R. (2020). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen, S. (Eds.). (2014b). Social work case studies: Concentration year. Laureate International Universities Publishing. [Vital Source e-reader].