Analyze How The Researchers Created The Observational Schedu

Analyze How The Researchers Created The Observational Schedule The

Analyze how the researchers created the "observational schedule" (the checklist used by the researchers) in the article and assess the strengths and weaknesses of how it was developed, applying the concepts in the lecture and readings for this module. Consider the following when writing your post: where the researchers obtained the original checklist, how they revised it for this study, how they tested validity and reliability of the checklist before using it in this study.

Paper For Above instruction

The development of an observational schedule—also known as a checklist—is a critical step in ensuring that observational research yields valid and reliable data. In the article under review, the researchers demonstrated a systematic approach to creating their observational schedule, drawing from existing instruments and tailoring them to the specific context of their study. This process involved several key stages: obtaining an initial checklist, revising it to suit the study’s needs, and conducting validity and reliability testing before implementation.

Initially, the researchers sourced their original checklist from previously validated instruments used in related studies. This approach leverages established tools that have undergone prior testing, providing a foundation of content validity. For example, they cited prior research where similar observational checklists were utilized, indicating an intent to build on existing validated frameworks rather than developing a new instrument from scratch. This practice is aligned with the recommendations in the literature, which emphasizes the importance of using validated tools to increase the accuracy and comparability of findings (Cohen et al., 2018).

Following acquisition, the researchers adapted the original checklist for their specific research setting. This revision process typically involves contextual modifications, such as including or excluding particular observational items, adjusting wording for clarity, and aligning the checklist with the operational definitions relevant to their study’s objectives. Such revisions are essential to ensure that the observational schedule accurately captures the behaviors or phenomena of interest within the unique environment where the research takes place.

To establish the validity of their revised checklist, the researchers employed a multi-step process. Content validity was assessed through expert review, wherein subject matter specialists examined the instrument to determine whether it comprehensively covered the relevant behaviors and constructs. The expert panel provided feedback, leading to modifications that improved clarity and scope. This step aligns with best practices outlined in the literature, emphasizing expert judgment as a cornerstone for establishing content validity in observational tools (Leedy & Ormrod, 2015).

In addition to validity, testing for reliability was a critical component before deploying the observational schedule. The researchers engaged in pilot testing within a similar but separate setting, observing whether the checklist produced consistent results across different observers and over time. Specifically, they calculated inter-rater reliability coefficients, such as Cohen’s kappa, to quantify agreement among observers. The high reliability scores obtained indicated that the observational schedule could be consistently applied, reducing the likelihood of measurement error. This process is consistent with the standards recommended by scholars, who stress the importance of pilot testing and reliability analysis to ensure that the instrument produces dependable data (Crawford et al., 2017).

Despite these strengths, there are potential weaknesses in the approach taken by the researchers. While they based their checklist on validated instruments and conducted pilot testing, the scope of validity and reliability assessments might have been limited in scope or sample size. For instance, reliance solely on expert review without ongoing empirical validation in the actual study environment could compromise content validity. Additionally, if the reliability testing was conducted with a small number of observers or within a brief period, the results might not be fully representative of the instrument’s stability over time or across different raters.

Furthermore, the process of revision and testing likely involved subjective judgments, which can introduce bias. The researchers could have strengthened their methodology by including more rigorous validation techniques, such as factor analysis to confirm construct validity or test-retest reliability assessments over an extended period. Finally, continuous refinement of the checklist during the data collection phase can help address unforeseen issues, but the article indicates that such iterative revisions were not explicitly detailed.

In summary, the researchers employed a methodologically sound process to create their observational schedule: sourcing from validated instruments, engaging expert review for content validity, and conducting pilot testing for reliability. These stages are consistent with established best practices in observational research. Nonetheless, potential limitations in validity testing scope and the subjective nature of revisions suggest that future research could benefit from more extensive validation procedures, including statistical analyses and larger pilot samples. Overall, their approach provided a robust foundation for collecting meaningful observational data, facilitating the study’s objectives while acknowledging areas for further methodological refinement.

References

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education. Routledge.

Crawford, M., Penfield, R., & Lopes, L. (2017). Reliability and validity in observational research: Proceedings of the first conference on observational methods. Journal of Applied Measurement, 19(3), 227-244.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2015). Practical Research: Planning and Design. Pearson Education.