Need A Response: Qualitative And Mixed Methods Critique

Need A Responsequalitativemixed Methods Critiquedescription Of The Pu

Need A Responsequalitativemixed Methods Critiquedescription Of The Pu

The purpose of this critique is to evaluate the qualitative and mixed methods aspects of the article by Keles, McCrae, and Grealish (2019), which explores the influence of social media on depression and adolescent well-being. The study aims to inform policy and practice and to guide future research by synthesizing existing evidence on the relationship between social media use and mental health issues among adolescents. The critique will focus on the research design, sample, data collection methods, findings, strengths, limitations, and implications for practice, emphasizing the qualitative and mixed methods components.

Paper For Above instruction

The article by Keles et al. (2019) employs a systematic review coupled with narrative synthesis as its primary research design. A systematic review involves the comprehensive collection, appraisal, and synthesis of relevant studies, often taking a qualitative approach by integrating findings from multiple research articles to generate overarching themes and insights. Narrative synthesis further enables the authors to interpret the evidence qualitatively, weaving together diverse study results to assess the overall relationship between social media and adolescent mental health.

From a qualitative perspective, the systematic review method allows the researchers to explore the complexities and nuances inherent in the existing literature, recognizing the multifactorial nature of mental health issues related to social media. However, the actual primary data within the review were predominantly derived from cross-sectional and some longitudinal quantitative studies. This indicates that the review's qualitative strength lies in its interpretative analysis rather than in original qualitative data collection, such as interviews or focus groups with adolescents.

The sample of primary studies included adolescents aged 13 to 18 years, mostly using validated instruments to measure depression, anxiety, and psychological distress. These studies relied heavily on self-reported measures, which can introduce biases such as social desirability and recall bias, potentially affecting the reliability of the data. Although the review screened a vast pool of 6,598 articles, only 13 met the eligibility criteria, highlighting a rigorous selection process that enhances the credibility of the synthesis. Nevertheless, the reliance on cross-sectional designs limits the ability to infer causality, a notable limitation in understanding the directional influence of social media on mental health.

The data collection process involved extracting relevant information from selected articles using Mendeley, ensuring that duplicates were eliminated and eligibility criteria applied systematically. The quality assessment employed the NIH tool, which provided a rating of good, fair, or poor. This assessment underscores the importance of evaluating the methodological robustness of included studies, but it also reveals that many studies relied on self-report measures without longitudinal follow-up, constraining the depth of qualitative insights obtainable about causal mechanisms.

The findings of the review suggest a potential association between social media use and mental health issues such as depression and anxiety among adolescents. However, the inconsistency across studies and the predominance of cross-sectional methodologies mean that the evidence is not definitive. The authors note that the relationship is likely multifactorial, involving mediating and moderating variables such as peer influence, online interactions, cyberbullying, and social comparison—parameters that are best suited for qualitative exploration to understand adolescents' subjective experiences and perceptions.

The strengths of this study include its comprehensive literature search across five databases, the large initial sample of articles screened, and the systematic application of eligibility and quality assessments. These aspects contribute to a robust, multiple-source synthesis that enhances the reliability of the conclusions. However, significant limitations exist, notably the inability of included studies to establish causality due to their cross-sectional nature and reliance on self-reported data. These limitations highlight the importance of incorporating qualitative methods, such as interviews or ethnographic studies, in future research to supplement quantitative findings with in-depth contextual understanding.

Future implications for practice should include the integration of qualitative research methods that explore adolescents' lived experiences with social media. Qualitative approaches would deepen understanding of how social media affects their emotional well-being, identity formation, and social interactions. Furthermore, mixed methods research combining quantitative surveys with qualitative interviews could elucidate mediating factors and pathways contributing to mental health outcomes, allowing for more targeted interventions and policy development.

In conclusion, while the reviewed study provides valuable quantitative synthesis on the association between social media and adolescent mental health, the constraints of cross-sectional designs and the absence of primary qualitative data limit the depth of understanding. To advance the field, future research should adopt mixed methods approaches, employing longitudinal qualitative studies to capture the nuanced, subjective experiences of adolescents navigating digital environments. Such comprehensive research would better inform policies aimed at mitigating mental health risks associated with social media use.

References

  • Keles, B., McCrae, N., & Grealish, A. (2019). A systematic review: The influence of social media on depression, anxiety and psychological distress in adolescents. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 79–93.
  • Chou, W. Y. S., Gaysynsky, A., & Vanderpool, R. C. (2019). The hype and hope of health social media research: Value, limitations, and recommendations. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(3), e12561.
  • Moreno, M. A., Ton, A., Selkie, E., & Evans, Y. (2019). Secret society 123: understanding the language of self-harm on Instagram. Journal of Adolescent Health, 64(1), 121-126.
  • Moore, R., Frank, J., & Gracia, K. (2020). Qualitative methods in adolescent mental health research: A systematic review. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 14, 17.
  • Huang, H., & Li, J. (2021). Social media use and adolescent psychological health: A meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(6), 377-385.
  • Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage publications.
  • Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92.
  • Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage Publications.

Related Assignments