Presented Study May Incorporate University Of Bri

Presented Study May Incorporate University Of Bri

Presented Study May Incorporate University Of Bri

Respond to at least two colleagues by explaining how that colleague might rule out one of the confounding variables that they identified.

Respond to following 2 students:

Andres

RE: Discussion – Week 4

Case Study Interpretation

In
the given case, The Chi-Square examination comprised of 60 individuals
that were separated into two groups. One group involved 30 members
represented as the intervention group, and the other 30 members were
considered the correlation groups (Plummer, Makris, and Brocksen, 2014).
The study’s purpose was to classify if the “vocational rehabilitation
intervention programs” are successful in helping people get work. Based
on the given information on the output charts, those who participated in
the vocational rehab program had a substantially higher rate finding
full-time work than those on the waiting list -the comparison group.

Factors Limiting Internal and External Validity

In any study, it is essential to verify its accuracy or validity. The legitimacy or validity is

characterized
as the degree to which an idea is precisely estimated in a quantitative
report. For instance, a review intended to investigate depression;
however, which really measures anxiety would not be viewed as legitimate
(Dudley, 2014; Twycross & Shields, 2004). Therefore, considering
the restricting internal validity of the presented study may incorporate
nonrandomized appointed members, and the potential contrast between the
groups was because of previous variances among the members. For precise
validity, the more a measure is substantial, the better the
investigation (Dudley, 2014). For instance, one crucial factor to keep
in mind is the vocational rehab members’ consistency in a given week.

Cause and Effect Relationship

The
above variables may limit the capacity to make an inference concerning
cause and effect relationship since the researchers must conclude if the
improvement is evident in the outcome result during the time of
execution (Dudley, 2014). One must consider the following three
conditions before concluding a casual relationship: the program
intervention must precede the client’s improve results; an association
should be found between the introduction of the mediation and the
client’s enhancement for the result proportions of the individual; and
finally, the reason of the outcome or improvement should not be
attributed to some of the other factors outside of the intervention. An
example of an outside factor that may influence the results is when an
individual may be attending other support groups that have enhanced the
client’s outcome and not necessarily the intervention directly impacting
the individual’s life.

References

Dudley, J. R. (2014). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. (2nd ed.) Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.

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].

Twycross, A., & Shields, L. (2004). Validity and reliability – What’s it all about? Paediatric Nursing, 16(10), 36–36.

Respond to following student:

Tanisha

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”

When reviewing the Chi Square
research study results in regards to employment and those that are
incarcerated, the study looked at inmates that participated in the
vocational rehabilitation program versus those who have not participated
in the program, to see if the program was successful in obtaining
employment after the inmates were released from jail (Plummer et. Al,
2014b). The study used 60 inmates, 1 of which did not supply any
information, where 30 of the participants received the vocational
training and 29 did not (Plummer et. Al, 2014b). The study looked at the
percentages of each group (intervention group vs. comparison group)
that did not have employment, had part-time employment, and had full
time employment and compared their findings together to see if the
outcomes found the difference to be significant enough to show that the
intervention was effective or not (Plummer et. Al, 2014b). 60% of the
participants in the training were found to be employed full time, 23%
were part-time, and 17% were unemployed whereas those that did not
participate in the training had 21% who were employed full-time, 24%
were part-time, and 55% were unemployed (Plummer et. Al, 2014b). Because
the p value (the difference) was .003, which is beyond the average of
.05 that researchers use to establish their interventions significance,
this intervention was found to be an effective intervention (Plummer et.
Al, 2014b).

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

The
research identified two main limitations for the internal validity of
this study and they are: 1. No random assignment was used, and 2. The
differences (the p value) between the two groups could have been due to
preexisting differences among the participants like selection bias
(Plummer et. Al, 2014b). Yes, the study wanted to see if the
intervention was effective or not and find a way to measure the
effectiveness and outcomes, but when you do not think of potential
limitations, it could decrease the validity of the study (Dudley, 2014).
If the participants were chosen randomly, or you added a control group
to the study, the numbers would provide more accuracy and validity
because you take bias out of the equation and have more of a pure study
where no one knows if the person did participate in training or not or
what previous knowledge or experience each participate had prior to the
study like if were they employed prior to being incarcerated (Dudley,
2014). A control group is a great way to have a group that is completely
unbiased that can regulate the outcomes in a more accurate way as well
because the measure is including many different factors not just one
which will provide more accurate outcomes to determine whether or not
that intervention really is effective or not (Dudley, 2014).

Dudley, J. R. (2014). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. (2nd ed.) Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.

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].