Lin Article Critique - Research Paper Example

Research Critique      Introduction Critical research analyses of documented research studies facilitate the development of knowledge and understanding of how certain studies were conducted. The process may also help in replication of studies. This also involves the evaluation of validity and reliability of the study as documented as well as other research aspects such as methodologies, design and sampling appropriateness and ethical compliance-just to mention, but a few (Marczyk, DeMatteo & Festinger, 2010).

This paper critically reviews various aspects of a study focused on determining the effectiveness of using “Forgiveness Therapy” in dealing with anger cases among substance abusers. The study was authored by Lin, W. David, M. Robert, D. E. Dean, K. and Thomas, W. B was authored in 2004. Critique of Population and Sampling Sampling methodology: The study adopted a purposive sampling model in which researchers were allowed to choose study participants in accordance to a pre-determined criterion (Trochim, 2006).

For example, in order to be a participant, one had to be recommended by their therapist, and in addition, the proposed participant had to attain a minimum score on some basic scales such as the ‘Enright Forgiveness Inventory’ (EFI) in order to take part. Therefore, there was no random sampling because various factors had to be considered for the inclusion criteria to be met (Trochim, 2006). As such, there was no random sampling, but rather purposive sampling and later on random assignment to the control and trial groups.

The sample was however drawn from the appropriate population or group-a population to which generalization of the findings would be possibly made upon conclusion of the study. Rate of Participation: The rate of participation denotes the number of actual partakers of the study. The rate of participation would have significantly declined if some potential subjects declined to take part. This would have also made the rate of participation unreasonably low considering that the inclusion criteria significantly reduced the potential entrants and the completion rate further worsened the scenario because only a mere 35% were able to reach study completion-a rate that is often worse than this in studies conducted within such set ups (Lin et al., 2004). The 35% completion rate implies that the responses were low, and it would have been prudent to try and enhance higher response rates.

However, there is no explicit expression of whether the researchers attempted to make multiple contacts to potential participants so as to have them participate (Lin et al., 2004). Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria as well as Clarity of Divide: There is significant reason to believe that the excluded and included participants had great similarities on certain aspects relating to variables relevant to the study. For example, the subjective nature of the inclusion criteria based on personal recommendations from a therapist implies that the criteria used was arbitrary and too subjective to make a clear-cut definition of who should participate and who should not participate.

Additionally, the various scores used to determine inclusion do not have clear-cut definitive boundaries that separate subjects, and their arbitrariness implies that the differences between participants and non-participants may have been subtle.Procedural Critique Consistency and Compliance: In order to enhance reliability and consistency all treatments were administered by the same individual, who was however; not part of the researchers’ team. In order to ascertain fidelity of the study a monitoring system was established.

The system ensured all sessions were recorded for further analysis of their ability to meet fidelity (Lin et al., 2004). The researchers randomly selected sessions from both groups and evaluated their consistency so as to determine whether the delivered sessions were close to the expected sessions. The fact that all the treatments were applied by a single individual means that there was no little variability and therefore, there was no need to work on eliminating the ‘personal effect.’ Additionally, the check for consistency eliminated any need of checking for compliance because there was no self-administration of treatments.

However, there was a need to evaluate the level of compliance with regard to the self-administered instruments such as the “Beck Depression Inventory II” (BDI-II) and the “Enright Forgiveness Inventory” (EFI). Checking for compliance on self-administration with regard to these tests was however, not explicitly reported within the study (Lin et al., 2004). Variability of Study Conditions: But for the designated treatments and demographic data differences, all study conditions were similar for all participants.

For example, the administrator of the treatments was retained for all sessions and participants (Lin et al., 2004). Demand Characteristics: The fact that this study was a behaviour-based study implies that it could possibly be affected by ‘demand characteristics’ because participants would easily conform to the anticipated outcome, which includes being able to forgive (Waring, 2006). In spite of this possibility, the researchers failed to take care of this possibility that may significantly affect validity.

This is evidenced by the fact that they did not take any measure to counter this possibility by for example, not informing the participants of the aim of the study (Waring, 2006). Experiment Setting: The experiment setting is ‘natural’ in relation to the population considered because it is expected that reforming substance abusers that are willing to transform are ‘naturally’ found in rehabilitative centers such as the one in which the study was conducted (Lin et al., 2004). Random Selection and Random Assignment: The researchers distinctly make mention of random assignment in the allocation of the sampled participants in to the treatment and control groups, but there is no explicit mention of random sampling, perhaps because this was not applicable to the study (Lin et al., 2004). Instrumentation Critique The study makes use of various types of instruments, however; the questions and structure of the actual full instrument contents is not explicitly highlighted within the study (Lin et al., 2004). Actual items and questions are not highlighted.

However, the researchers were able to highlight the response formats and settings of the various instruments used in a brief summary that captured their key elements and the other factors such as their reliability and validity. There are rare cases of different variants of instruments used to collect data on the same variable. However, in this study there were no multiple collections of data on the same variable using different instruments. Instead, data on each variable was collected using a single instrument.

This was perhaps a good consideration because it reduces the complexity of analysis of acquired data. The instruments used were each highlighted in form of a summary and the citations to their full sources were offered. This is appropriate for any individual that would like to further consult and build understanding of the basics and intricacies of the instruments used. Notably, there were no measures to prevent instrumentation from affecting any observable, overt behavior. This perhaps due to the fact that the instruments used were a standardized form of instruments that did not require any modification because of their high level of objectivity.

The fact that data collection was based on self-administration of instruments meant that compliance was necessary to ensure tests were interpreted uniformly. As such, there was also no need of considering inter-observer reliability because the data was not collected by any external observers.Result Critique The analysis of data gathered involved the computation of t-test change scores-meant to determine the levels of change from pre-test, post-test and the follow up period. In order to prove or disapprove the hypothesis, scores from the two treatment groups were compared by computing one-tailed tests.

There were no percentages recorded, but rather means (m) and standard deviations (SD) for all variables and distributions (Lin et al., 2004). The information on these statistical elements portraying their variation within the study is well presented in a tabulated form showing the baseline figures (pre-test), post-test results and the follow results (Lin et al., 2004). The table is easy to understand and enhances ease of comprehension on collected data. The computation of observed changes was reported as being significant.

However, the researchers failed to report on the level of significance as well as each of the variables’ significant difference from baseline. The researchers refer back to the hypothesis in the analytical phase of the documented study (Lin et al., 2004). However, they fail to do so within the results section where this would be expected so as to help the readership determine whether the results were in accordance with hypothesized situation. Discussion Critique The discussion on the study starts by presenting an introductory summary on the state of research on the focal topic highlighted within the study.

Thereafter, a summary of the baseline statistics is presented as well as the final results of study. The significance of the results in relation to the purpose of the study is also outlined. In essence, the discussion presented offered a comprehensive review of the whole study as well as future implications of the findings with regard to therapeutic practice. In this regard, recommendation of inclusion of ‘Forgiveness Therapy’ in substance abuse cases is recommended. In spite of the promising nature of the results, the researchers also note weaknesses or limitations in their study.

The first limitation is limited generalization based on the fact that the sample size used is too small to confer greater applicability (Lin et al., 2004). Secondly, the researchers note that there was significant attrition in the study because only 14 out of the initial 40 participants completed the study (Lin et al., 2004). The follow up period was also found to be short, and therefore, long-term effects in to the future would not be clearly established. Establishing experimenter effect and resentment levels was a challenge because only one therapist was used throughout the session and the resentment reporting was subject-dependent (Lin et al., 2004). The researchers notably integrate the discussion with previously cited literature from the introductory part, and thus offering a comprehensive understanding about the whole study.

Notably, there is no new material introduced at the discussion level and there are also no new references. Critique of entire article The researchers selected an important research topic that is very significant in terms of determining relapse possibilities. It is widely agreeable that resentment, self-pity and hatred are significant reasons in influencing substance abuse. Unless one is able to break from these habits, it is less likely that they can stop substance abuse (Lin et al., 2004). As such, a study to determine how forgiveness can enhance the ability to break off from these feelings that drive the habit is indeed significant and important towards the improvement of therapy.

The conceptualization of the study and its issues is well reflected upon, and connections are well established in relation to the past and present status of therapy in relation to the element of forgiveness in therapy and substance abuse relapses (Lin et al., 2004). The structural development of the study and its conceptualization form a cohesive piece of work that drives the readership from initial reasoning, development and overall conceptualization of study and finally onto analysis and inference making.

The work flows from questions to results, and therefore, offers comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon and answers to posed questions. This piece of research particularly extends knowledge and understanding on the role of forgiveness in influencing relapse, and its potential use in therapy. It develops knowledge about the inclusion of ‘Forgiveness therapy’, which is essentially a new form of therapy. The study was a success in most aspects, but there were a few methodological flaws such as the inability to blind the study for the sake of preventing ‘demand characteristics,’ which could possibly have a negative effect on the study’s responses.

The fact that this study was a behaviour-based study implies that it could have possibly been affected by ‘demand characteristics’ because participants would easily conform to the anticipated outcome, which includes being able to forgive (Waring, 2006). In spite of this possibility, the researchers failed to take care of this probable occurrence that could significantly affect validity. This is evidenced by the fact that they did not take any measure to counter this possibility by for example, not informing the participants of the aim of the study (‘Blinding’) (Waring, 2006).

Therefore, the participants should not have been informed that the study aimed at determining the possibility of forgiveness enhancement. This should just have been assessed among many others without revelation. This flaw was totally avoidable because the effect is often expected in this kind of studies. Proposed Follow-up Research Improvement Plan In order to improve upon this study, there would be a need to make a few improvements upon it in any related and future follow-up studies. Firstly, there will be a need to blind the study so that participants are not aware of the expected outcomes so as to improve validity of the results.

Secondly, the great attrition in the current study affects the reliability of the study. This is expected because of the characteristics of the group under study, but measures can be put in place to counter it. For example, incentives could be introduced so as to ensure that the participants are encouraged to stay in the program. Additionally, the study should extend the follow up period and increase the sample size so as to ensure that the obtained results are valid and reliable across time and over wider population (greater applicability).

Otherwise, the rest of the methodological design could be retained as is in the current study.ReferencesLin, W. David, M. Robert, D. E. Dean, K. & Thomas, W. B. (2004). Effects of Forgiveness Therapy on Anger, Mood, and Vulnerability to Substance Use among Inpatient Substance-Dependent Clients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72 (6), 1114–1121.Marczyk, R. G, DeMatteo, D. & Festinger, D. (2010). Essentials of Research Design and Methodology, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken: NJ.Trochim, K. M. W. (2006). Probability sampling, retrieved from http://www.

socialresearchmethods.net/kb/sampprob.php> Waring, P. (2006). Psychological research and Scientific Method, retrieved from http://psychology4a.com/Psychological%20Research.htm