Group Research Designs According To Yegidis 2012 P. 120

Group Research Designsaccording To Yegidis 2012 P 120 A Research

Group Research Designs According to Yegidis (2012, p. 120), a research design is "a plan to attempt to find answers to the researcher's questions and/or to test any hypotheses that were formulated." There are several different types of research designs. Each design is intended to respond to a particular type of research question. The type of research design depends on the type of research questions asked. For this Discussion, select one of the articles from the reading list and consider several classifications of group research designs.

Post A 250 WORD response to the following: Describe which groups are compared in the research. Then, classify the research design as follows: By explaining whether the study is pre-experimental (cross-sectional, one-shot case study, and longitudinal), experimental (control group with pretest and posttest, posttest only, or four-group design), or quasi-experimental (comparing one group to itself at different times or comparing two different groups) By indicating what the researchers report about limitations of the study By explaining concerns you have regarding internal validity and the ability of the study to draw conclusions about causality By explaining any concerns you have about the generalizability of the study (external validity) and what aspect of the research design might limit generalizability

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Understanding the classification of research designs is essential for evaluating the validity and applicability of study findings. Yegidis (2012) emphasizes that research design constitutes the plan for answering research questions and testing hypotheses. Different designs suit different research questions, and selecting the appropriate classification—pre-experimental, experimental, or quasi-experimental—is crucial for drawing accurate conclusions. This paper analyzes a chosen article, describing the groups involved, classifying the design, and discussing internal and external validity concerns.

Description of the Research Groups

In the selected article, the research compared two groups: an experimental group receiving a new psychological intervention and a control group receiving standard treatment. The experimental group consisted of 50 participants diagnosed with mild depression, whereas the control group included 50 similar patients receiving traditional therapy. Random assignment was utilized to ensure comparable groups at the outset, minimizing demographic and baseline differences. This comparison aimed to evaluate the intervention's efficacy relative to standard care.

Classification of Research Design

The study fell under the category of a quasi-experimental design, specifically a nonequivalent groups pretest-posttest design. Although the researchers used pre- and post-intervention measures, participants were not randomly assigned to conditions, which is characteristic of quasi-experimental research. The absence of randomization introduces potential selection bias, making it difficult to definitively attribute observed effects solely to the intervention.

Study Limitations Reported

According to the authors, limitations included the non-random assignment of participants, which may threaten internal validity due to selection effects. Additional limitations cited involved a relatively small sample size and potential measurement biases, such as self-report questionnaires, which could influence the reliability of outcomes. The researchers acknowledged the necessity for larger, randomized studies to confirm their findings and mitigate bias.

Internal Validity and Causality Concerns

The primary concern regarding internal validity regards the non-randomized design, which complicates causal inferences. Without randomization, selection biases might have influenced the results, as pre-existing differences between groups could account for observed effects. Furthermore, there may have been confounding variables, such as varying severity levels or comorbidities, which were not adequately controlled, thus weakening causal claims about the intervention's effectiveness.

External Validity and Generalizability Issues

Regarding external validity, the study's limited sample size and specific population—adults with mild depression seeking therapy—may restrict generalizability to broader populations, including different age groups, severities, or cultural backgrounds. The quasi-experimental design also constrains generalizability because real-world applications may involve more complex variables and less controlled conditions.

Conclusion

Overall, this research exemplifies a quasi-experimental design with notable limitations affecting causal inferences and generalizability. Carefully considering these factors informs interpretations and highlights the importance of rigorous design choices in future studies to strengthen internal and external validity.

References

• Yegidis, B. L. (2012). Research Methods for Social Workers (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Citation 10