SOCW 6311 WK 4 responses
Respond to at least two colleagues each one has to be answered separately name first then response
Bottom of Form
Respond to at least two colleagues by doing all of the following:
· Respond to at least two colleagues by explaining how that colleague might rule out one of the confounding variables that they identified
·
Instructor wants lay out like this:
Respond to at least two colleagues ( 2 peers posts are provided) by doing all of the following:
Identify strengths of your colleagues’ analyses and areas in which the analyses could be improved.
Your response
Address his or her evaluation of the efficacy and applicability of the evidence-based practice,
Your response
[Evaluate] his or her identification of factors that could support or hinder the implementation of the evidence-based practice,
Your response
And [evaluate] his or her solution for mitigating those factors.
Your response
Offer additional insight to your colleagues by either identifying additional factors that may support or limit implementation of the evidence-based practice or an alternative solution for mitigating one of the limitations that your colleagues identified.
Your response
References
Your response
PEER 1
McKenna Bull
RE: Discussion – Week 4
Post an interpretation of the case study’s conclusion that “the vocational rehabilitation intervention program may be effective at promoting full-time employment.”
The design described in this particular case study seeks to assess the effectiveness of a new vocational rehabilitation program for recently paroled prison inmates (Plummer, Makris and Brocksen, 201, p. 63). In order to evaluate this program, the evaluators implemented a quasi-experimental research design. In this design, participants are not randomly assigned to conditions or orders of conditions (Price et al., 2016). Ultimately, quasi-experimental research involves the manipulation of an independent variable without the random assignments of participants to conditions or orders of conditions (Price et al., 2016). It seems that this design is specifically more of a “nonequivalent” design. As they have two subject groups essentially, those 30 who are able to immediately participate in the program (“intervention” group) and the other 30 who are on the wait list (“comparison” group).
Based on the data presented, it seems that there may be some statistically significant relation between the independent variable (vocational rehabilitation intervention) and the dependent variable (employment). It’s important to note the use of “may” in “the vocational rehabilitation intervention program may be effective at promoting full-time employment…”. It is nearly impossible to “prove” a cause and effect relationship in regards to research in the social work field, due to humanistic components of the studies, and other aspects that may be out of the control of the researcher.
The researchers were able to include the outcome of the chi-square test. Chi-square tests of independence and measures of association and agreement for nominal and ordinal data. Essentially, is there a relationship between the independent variable and a dependent variable? This study showed that the difference between the intervention and comparison groups were highly significant, with a p value (the evidence against a null hypothesis) of .003 which is statistically significant. In this regard, it could be safe to say that there “may” be a relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
Describe the factors limiting the internal validity of this study, and explain why those factors limit the ability to draw conclusions regarding cause and effect relationships.
Internal validity is the approximate truth about inferences regarding cause and effect, or potentially causal relationships (Trochim, 2006). In this instance, internal validity is relevant as researchers seek to establish a causal relationship between their intervention, and the employment status of participants. Price et al. (2016) argues that in terms of internal validity, quasi-experimental designs are generally somewhere between correlational studies and true experiments. Quasi-experimental designs lack the random assignment component, which random assignment may further validate the causal relationship. However, these designs also contain more internal validity than other designs, such as a correlational study which simply measures two variables and assesses whether a statistical relationship is present.
Researchers in this study acknowledge there may have been limitations to their study. The first limitation noted was the fact that no random assignment was used. Second, researchers mentioned that it may have been possible that differences between the groups were due to preexisting differences among the participants (Plummer, Makris, and Brocksen, 2014). It would be important in future studies of this program to perhaps take a more experimental based design that implemented random assignment, a control group, and perhaps evaluate the potential long-term effects of the program (i.e. the degree to which the individual is able to maintain a job).
References
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].
Price, P. C., Jhangiani, R. S., & Chiang, I.C. (2016). Research methods in psychology (2nd ed.). Creative Commons Attribution. Retrieved from: https://opentextbc.ca/researchmethods/chapter/quasi-experimental-research/#:~:text=Quasi%2Dexperimental%20research%20involves%20the,and%20interrupted%20time%2Dseries%20designs.
Trochim, W. M. (2006). Internal validity. Retrieved from: https://conjointly.com/kb/internal-validity/
Peer 2
Bottom of Form
Cedric Brown
RE: Discussion – Week 4
Top of Form
Post an interpretation of the case study’s conclusion that “the vocational rehabilitation intervention program may be effective at promoting full-time employment.”
The vocational rehabilitation intervention program was designed to promote full-time employment among recently paroled prison inmates (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014). The program was evaluated using a quasi-experimental design, that used 30 individuals and then compared them to 30 participants who were on the waiting list for the program (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014). The forms of employment were broken up into three different categories: unemployed, part-time employment, and full-time employment. The program was considered a success because the participants in the program had a 60% rate of full-time employment compared to the non-participant group which was at 20.7% full-time employment (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014). Because the group’s focus is on full-time employment, statistics prove it to be a success.
Describe factors limiting the internal validity of this study, and explain why those factors limit the ability to draw conclusions regarding cause and effect relationships.
The study discussed multiple limitations, such as preexisting differences between the groups that could have caused the disparity in employment. No random assignments were used, and it was not a controlled group (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014).
The internal validity addresses if the intervention and not outside factors are the reason for the improvement in the client outcomes (Dudley, 2014). In this study, there is no way to know if those outside factors have played a part in them gaining full-time employment. Another thing to consider is that the biases of others in the hiring process was not taken into consideration. The participants were not all in the same hiring pool and they had different hiring managers. It’s also important to keep in mind the participants were applying for different positions.
Cedric
Reference
Dudley, J.R. (2014). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL:
Lyceum Books.
Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocken, S. (Eds.). (2014b.). Social work case studies:
Concentration year. Baltimore, MD: Laureate International Universities Publishing. [Vital
Source e-reader].
