BY DAY 5
Respond to two of your colleagues’ posts and:
- Make recommendations for the design choice.
- Explain whether you think that this is the appropriate test to use for the research question. Why or why not?
- As a lay reader, were you able to understand the results and their implications? Why or why not?
WANDA
Which is the research design used by the authors?
I selected a quantitative research study, “The Relationship Between Community Integration and Mental Health Recovery in People with Mental Health Issues Living in the Community” by Won Hee Jun and EunJuong Choi. The research study was conducted in South Korea. The research study focused on individuals with mental health diagnoses, and a consumer-centered recovery paradigm is globally important (Jun & Choi, 2020). This study measured the relationship between community integration and mental health recovery in people with mental health difficulties living in a community in South Korea (Jun & Choi, 2020). There were 155 volunteers. The volunteers identified as having mental health difficulties while living in South Korea. Data was collected from the Self-Reporting Scale of Community Integration and the Mental Health Recovery Measure (Korean version).
Why did the authors use the ANOVA test?
To obtain true and accurate data, the authors use the ANOVA test to analyze the relationship between community integration and mental health recovery. The authors hope to gain a much clearer understanding of mental health recovery involving citizens with mental health issues living in the community and to create more interventions for mental health recovery (Jun & Choi, 2020).
Do you think it is the most appropriate choice? Why or why not?
This is the most appropriate choice for this research study. For example, the significance level for all statistics was set at p < .05. Differences in community integration and mental health recovery according to demographic characteristics were analyzed using t-tests (e.g., scale scores were compared by gender, religion, education, residential status, working status, monthly income, and service use status) and ANOVA (e.g., scale scores were compared and by age, marital status, and diagnosis) (Jun & Choi, 2020). According to Jun and Choi, 2020, the ANOVA test and post hoc test results, the demographic variables entered the first stage of the regression model.
Did the authors display the data?
The authors did display the data. For example, the data included: Participants’ demographic characteristics (n = 155); Levels of community integration and mental health recovery (n = 155); Differences in community integration and mental health recovery scores by demographic characteristics (n = 155); Associations between community integration and mental health recovery (n = 155); and Predictors of mental health recovery (n = 155) (Jun & Choi, 2020). The authors displayed the data to compare community integration and mental health recovery.
Do the results stand alone? Why or why not?
Yes, the results stand alone because the authors completed thorough research that provided truthful data for better understanding.
Did the authors report effect size? If yes, is this meaningful?
The authors did report effect size. For example, the minimum required number of study participants for statistical purposes was estimated using G-power 3.1.9.2. Assuming a significance level of .05, 80% power, a medium effect size of 0.15 denoted by f square that is calculated using the formula (R2/1-R2), and a linear multiple regression analysis with 15 predictors (10 demographic characteristics and five community integration domains), the minimum sample size was estimated to be n = 139 (Jun & Choi, 2020). Therefore, the sample size of 155 participants is meaningful.
Reference
Jun, W. H., & Choi, E. J. (2020). The relationship between community integration and mental health recovery in people with mental health issues living in the community: A quantitative study. Journal of Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing (John et al., Inc.), 27(3), 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12578
WALTER
Which is the research design used by the authors?
Viehl&Dispenza (2015) used a correlational design in their exploratory study.
Why did the authors use ANOVA test?
Viehl&Dispenza (2015) conducted many ANOVA testing strategies. Two tests were run utilizing scores on workload as the dependent variable and gender as the independent variable and then again as sexual orientation as the independent. Both of these tests showed no significant difference between groups. Another set of ANOVA tests was run with weekly supervision hours as the dependent variable and gender as the independent variable and then again with sexual orientation as the independent variable with no statistical difference. However, the three-part hypothesis was to explore why sexual-minority mental health professionals suffered higher burnout rates.
Additionally, that rates of burnout might be related to emotion-focused and problem-focused coping strategies employed by sexual minorities within the field. Additional two factorial ANOVA(s) were conducted with emotion-focused coping as the dependent variable while heterosexual and sexual minority-identified mental health professionals as the independent. Lastly, this was repeated, except problem-focused coping was the dependent variable. Levene’s test was used to show that the assumption of homogeneity of variance had not been violated. The results showed no difference between problem-focused coping between genders or sexual identification. The study did show that sexual minority–identified practitioners engaged in less emotion-focused coping (M = 8.99, SD = 2.25) when compared to heterosexual-identified practitioners (M = 10.16, SD = 2.04). The authors utilized ANOVA testing as there were more than two population groups (Frankfort-Nachmias et al., 2021). Groups were primarily separated based on gender and sexual minority, meaning the researchers had at least four comparison sample groups (Viehl&Dispenza, 2015).
Do you think it’s the most appropriate choice? Why or why not?
I believe ANOVA testing was appropriate for this exploratory study (Viehl&Dispenza, 2015). As mentioned above, the subjects were sorted out by gender and sexual identity, which led to 4 groups being utilized for cross-sectional analysis. Additionally, three different screening tools were used to compare measures within population groups (Viehl&Dispenza, 2015).
Did the authors display the data?
Yes. However, the authors were not as thorough as they could have been with their findings and ANOVA testing (Viehl&Dispenza, 2015). Figure 1 displays the estimated marginal means of counselor burnout based on gender and sexual identification. However, as mentioned, many ANOVA procedures were carried out. One finding showed a correlation between sexual-minority males suffering higher rates of burnout due to lower utilization of emotion-focused coping strategies (Viehl&Dispenza, 2015). A finding that would have been bolstered if shown graphically.
Do the results stand alone? Why or why not?
Yes, the results do stand alone in part. As mentioned, there is a graph that does point to a higher correlation of burnout with sexual minority males who are mental health professionals. However, there were three hypotheses posited for this study. Two of which were shown to have significance. Only one was graphically represented.
Did the authors report effect size? If yes, is this meaningful?
The authors did not report effect size, although they do report p-values (Viehl&Dispenza, 2015). There is mention of effect size and correlation. However, the findings were not well-reported and could have been reported differently (Viehl&Dispenza, 2015). It is possible this was done due to the exploratory nature of this study. The results were reported as being meaningful. However, by what measure? There was no indication of establishing alpha, so was the term meaningful more subjective than objective?
References
Frankfort-Nachmias, C., Leon-Guerrero, A., & Davis, G. (2021). Social statistics for a diverse society (Ninth edition). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Viehl, C., &Dispenza, F. (2015). Burnout and Coping: An Exploratory Comparative Study of Heterosexual and Sexual Minority Mental Health Practitioners. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 9(4), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2015.1112337Links
