DESIGN - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 24
About This Presentation
Title:

DESIGN

Description:

Phenomenology. Culture? . . . . . Ethnography. Process?. . . . . .Grounded Theory. Communication? ... to philosophical underpinnings are hallmarks of good ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:49
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 25
Provided by: onewe
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: DESIGN


1
DESIGN
  • The question drives the design

2
QUALITATIVE
  • What is the purpose of the study?
  • What is the question?

3
QUALITATIVE APPROACHES
  • Meaning? . . . . . . . . . . . . .Phenomenology
  • Culture? . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethnography
  • Process?. . . . . . . . . . . . .Grounded Theory
  • Communication?. . . . . . Discourse Analysis

4
  • Open-ended questions do NOT a qualitative study
    make!

5
Rigor and Fidelity
  • to philosophical underpinnings are hallmarks of
    good qualitative research design

6
GOOD DESIGN
  • Increases likelihood that research questions will
    be accurately answered
  • Decreases number of competing explanations

7
RIGOR AND CONTROL
  • are hallmarks of good quantitative design
  • Validity of findings increased with fewer threats
    to validity

8
MAXMINCON
  • MAX research variance
  • experimental conditions are as different as
    possible
  • e.g., nursing intervention different from usual
  • e.g., wide variations in scores

9
MIN
  • MIN error/random variance
  • e.g., if fatigue a problem, measure at a
    different time
  • e.g., ensure reliability of instruments

10
CON
  • CON extraneous variables
  • 1. random selection/random assignment
  • 2. control groups
  • 3. match participants
  • 4. build variable into design as I.V.
  • 5. statistical procedures (e.g., covariance)

11
THREATS TO VALIDITY
  • Internal threats interfere with meaning of
    results with this sample
  • Most important
  • External threats interfere with ability to
    generalize results beyond study sample

12
INTERNAL THREATS
  • History
  • Selection
  • (are those who participate different?
  • Maturation
  • (Would time have changed participants anyway?)
  • Control group
  • Control group, matching Dilman method
  • Control group

13
  • Testing
  • (did it change participant?)
  • Mortality/attrition
  • (are those who dropped different?)
  • Instrumentation
  • (did everyone get the same? Was it
    accurate/precise?)
  • Solomon 4/control gr
  • Add to sample analyze drop-outs
  • Train tester, inter-rater reliability calibrate

14
EXTERNAL THREATS
  • Hawthorne
  • Experimenter effects
  • Tight control (artificiality of findings)

15
Experimental Designs
  • Cause and Effect

16
Experimental Design
  • Strongest external validity
  • Randomization
  • Manipulation of IV
  • Control groups

17
Quasi-Experimental
  • Lacking one of the big 3 of Experimental
  • Control group call Comparison

18
Other Experimental Designs
  • Pretest/Postest
  • Posttest only
  • Solomon 4

19
TERMS
  • Cohort/panel ?threat
  • Nonequivalent Groups not randomized therefore
    not equal
  • Pre-experimental lacks 1/2 of big 3

20
  • Participants as their own controls
  • Secondary Analysis
  • Meta-analysis
  • Triangulation

21
Nonexperimental Designs
  • May infer relationships
  • May NOT infer cause and effect

22
  • Ex post facto
  • Retrospective
  • Preexperimental/Nonexperimental

23
TIME
  • Retrospective
  • Prospective
  • Cross Sectional
  • Time Series

24
No study is an island . . .
  • Science builds
  • No single study proves . . .
  • Findings support or fail to support
  • What is the preponderance of evidence?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com