Assessment of Lin Article-Part Three
XXXXXXX M. XXXXXXX
Assessment of Lin Article-Part Three
Elements covered in this graduate student’s first critique of Effects of Forgiveness Therapy on Anger, Mood, and Vulnerability to Substance Use Among Inpatient Substance-Dependent Clients (Lin, Mack, Enright, Krahn, and Baskin, 2004) encompassed a compendium of its subject matter along with an evaluation of its first three components (e.g., abstract, literature review and research hypothesis). In its sequel, an analysis of the study’s participants along with an inspection of its procedure and instrumentation was offered. Within the third and final segment of this critique however, readers will find: (1) a scrutinization of its Results section, (2) an examination of its Discussion section, (3) an assessment of the entire article, and (4) a proposed plan for a follow-up study, which may result in some improvements being made over its predecessor. Results Critique
Within the Results portion of many academic journals it is not an uncommon practice for percentages to be reported within an article’s contents (Pyrczak, 2008). This practice is performed, of course, so the study’s outcome may be more clearly understood. But, along with the provision of these data, it is also imperative for scientists to provide their readers with the “underlying number of cases for each percentage” (Pyrczak, 2008, p, 103) because if this data is not supplied, it can present the appearance of deception.
Regarding the presence of these entries in this article, this writer observes inconsistencies. For, although these researchers had announced the number of participants that they had in their study’s beginning and in its end (Lin et al., 2004), they did not publish what the differences were between the scores of the individuals who remained in the study and the scores of the individuals who left. In noting the obvious absence of this data, this analyst must rate this item ‘2’ (i.e. this is from the Likert scale, which means that ‘5’ is equated with the most excellent of ratings and ‘1’ is equated with the inference of serious inadequacies) due to the lack of this congruency.
In addition to supplying this information, it is just as common for researchers to disclose mean values to consumer scholarship as well, which, according to Pyrczak (2008), should only be used when a distribution is not skewed. However, after reviewing this data in the Lin et al. (2004) article, this evaluator has determined to give the assayers a mediocre rating of ‘3’ on this particular. Though, to the experimenters’ credit, they had provided a table that displayed the mean and standard deviation of their participants’ dependent variables as well as a table that had accounted for these same values in the gains that these individuals experienced as a result of treatments (e.g., which was either forgiveness therapy [FT] or alcohol and drug counseling [ADC]), they had omitted the publishing of the raw data of their participants, making it impossible for the determination of a normal distribution to be ascertained.
Whenever treatments in research are studied, consumers of this type of information are often drawn towards knowing the efficacies of the treatments in the Results section (Pyrczak, 2008). In response to this demand, Lin et al. (2004) referred their readers to the article’s tables and provided the comment, “The FT group demonstrated significantly greater improvement from pretest to posttest according to one-tailed t tests of changes …” (p. 1117). In further elaborating this point, the researchers asserted, “the two groups exhibited significant differences in regard to improvements …” (p. 1117). Though one may obtain very helpful information from the tables provided, these experimenters offered no statistical information on this matter in the text of this section. Additionally, it is interesting to note that the experiment’s effect size can...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document