Research Design
Introduction
The study design is the investigator’s general plan for acquiring answers to the research questions[s] that are guiding the study (Breakwell, Smith, and Wright, 2012, p.8). The intentions of design are to help the researcher plan and execute the research in a way that will aid him or her obtain the intended results, a factor that would increase the chances of acquiring useful information as opposed to irrelevant data.
This study will use quantitative and exploratory descriptive designs within a cross-sectional study. The aim is to determine the correlation between self-harm adolescent girls who are receiving group therapy treatment and those who are under a different form of remedy. The objective is to not only identify but also to analyze and describe factors that contribute to adolescent girls’ self-harm tendencies. The “Inventory of Statements about Self-Injury” (ISAS) will create the foundations of a framework for collecting data in target areas. Subsequently, the researcher will categorize Identified issues into contributing factors, variables that influence the likelihood of adolescent girls initiating and maintaining self-harm and individual perceptions.
Cross-Sectional Design
The quantitative research.
Quantitative research handles the numerical data and statistical analyses that go on to provide the quantitative information of a study (Breakwell, Smith, and Wright, 2012, p.31). Quantitative research requires the researcher to evaluate neutrally the data that consist of numbers as a means of excluding bias in the collection and analysis stage. Usually, the quantitative method utilizes a questionnaire and involves the numerical examination of data gathered by the same.
This study will attempt to use quantitative methods on identified factors as contributing to self-harm among female adolescents in the target area. The researcher will use the quantitative approach to determine the behaviors, perceptions, feelings, and experiences of the sample group. The researcher will focus on each mentioned experience from its respective participant. Notably, the investigator’s participation will aid in data collection and analysis processes.
Characteristics of quantitative research.
The features of a quantitative research revolve around the fact that the method relies on numbers. Thus, collected data will be brief and straightforward. Quantitative analysis can describe and examine relationships while determining causality among variables where possible (Elmes, Kantowitz, and Roediger, 2011, p.390). After all, the statistical analysis will help reduce and organize collected data so the researcher can identify the relevant relationships that are necessary for the identification of similarities and differences within and among the categorized data. It allows the complete collection of data as quantitative instruments result in a comprehensive description of the target population and identified variables (Breakwell, Smith, and Wright, 2012, p.27). Of course, the given advantage will rely on the reliability and validity of the instruments. Finally, quantitative research allows the investigator to provide an accurate account of individuals, groups, and identified situations.
Exploratory and descriptive.
Breakwell, Smith, and Wright (2012) define exploratory data analysis as “the process of looking for patterns [collected] data” (p.550). The study will be exploratory because it will explore the factors contributing to self-harm tendencies among adolescent girls in the target area. Extensively, exploratory examinations consider what researchers are yet to explore and attempts to pinpoint new insights, new understandings, and new knowledge that would pave the way for new meanings and more explorations of factors related to the research topic (Breakwell, Smith, and Wright, 2012, p.334). Green et al. employed exploratory devices to explore the economic impacts of “costs to health, social care, education, and criminal justice sectors” to the respondents (2011, p.5).
The research design will be exploratory because it seeks to determine the various causes of self-harm among adolescent girls and the researcher assumes that the participants will give varied reasons that can aid other researchers and medical practitioners in assisting self-harming individuals. After all, this study will investigate the full nature of the observable fact [self-harming adolescent girls in a particular target area], the precursor conditions to the materialization of the same, and the related factors that can influence a teenage girl at the point of deciding whether or not to self-harm. In some cases, the outcomes of descriptive studies are not the general representation of a larger populace, but they undoubtedly provide a better understanding of the sample group. Accordingly, it is the aim of the researcher to use exploratory approaches to understanding why adolescent girls in the target areas self-harm instead of seeking help.
Exploratory research examines the significant factors in detail before arriving at an accurate description of the reality of an existing phenomenon (in this case, females aged between 10 and 19 years that self-harm). Elmes, Kantowitz, and Roediger (2011) assert that descriptive research “tends to be more flexible than experimentation and it can address important issues about the ecological function associated with particular behaviors” (p.127). By that logic, one can use the given design for the purpose of developing assumptions about a study, identifying the problems with existing management practices or the justifications for continuing to use them, and determine what other researchers would do in the same position. In other words, the mentioned design will provide the views and perceptions of the target group and allow respondents to weigh in on the observable facts. This study will attempt to identify issues, which propelled adolescent girls into self-harming, and describe them based on created categories.
Characteristics of exploratory and descriptive research design.
According to Breakwell, Smith, and Wright, the combination of exploratory and descriptive designs has multiple advantages in the collection of data for a study (2012, p.346). Foremost, the methods are flexible in nature and will beget a design that provides a researcher with the opportunity to examine the aspects of a problem (self-harm among girls). Secondly, it can help in the development of new knowledge such as a possible variable that previous research work has overlooked (Smith, and Wright, 2012, p.346). Hence, it is possible to derive future hypotheses from the results of an exploratory and descriptive study. The researcher can collect data in a natural setting; that is one can make observations during the execution of other methods such as focus group discussions.
Validity of the study
Validity as a research concept means that the results of a study are measuring what the researcher thinks they are measuring and nothing else (Breakwell, Smith, and Wright, 2012, p.52). For illustration purposes, one may consider hair color as an example. While an individual is a blonde or a brunette, his or her hair color is not a valid measure of infatuation, grief, or even happiness. By that logic, it is evident that the test (color of hair) is not valid but still, nothing is always “clear-cut” (Breakwell, Smith, and Wright, 2012, p.52). For instance, one may dye his or her hair read to show his or her joy at the prospects of a new job; however, that does not mean that a redhead is so because he or she is reporting to a new workplace.
External validity.
According to Breakwell, Smith, and Wright (2012), external validity refers to the extent to which one can generalize the results “beyond the [sample] of the study” (p.78). If a study lacks external validity, the researcher lacks confidence that his or her findings will be applicable outside the constricted confines of the research. In other words, when the sample group fails to represent the target population reasonably, there is no external validity (Elmes, Kantowitz, and Roediger, 2011, p.188). Subsequently, when a researcher fails to exhibit a proper understanding of performance indicators, other researchers will be unable to imitate his or her experiment (Breakwell, Smith, and Wright, 2012, p.292). Additionally, the failure to ensure that the control and experimental groups are ideal representatives of the larger populace will inhibit the external validity of the study.
Hence, little external validity in this study implies that the results can be valid only to adolescent girls residing in the target area (Breakwell, Smith, and Wright, 2012, p.79). The selection of a non-random available sample (teenage girls aged between 10 and 19 years who were receiving treatment in chosen hospitals and group therapy locations) will most likely compromise the external validity of this study. The researcher had no guarantee that the girls aged between 10 and 19 years who were visiting the clinic had the same attitudes and beliefs towards self-harming tendencies. As this sample was not random, it implies that not every girl aged between 10 and 19 years in the target area had the equal chance of inclusion.
Study Critiques Based on External Validity
In Slee et al. (2008), the study relied on a cross-sectional research design as with participants receiving random assignments “to 12 sessions of CBT in addition to TAU (n=48) orTAU only (n=42)” (p.203). The cognitive behavior therapy plus treatment as usual (CBT) and treatment as usual (TAU) groups were from ninety adolescents who the researchers randomly assigned to treatment group. Additionally, the results were also subject to a longitudinal study as respondents “were invited for subsequent assessments [three] months, [six] months and [nine] months following the baseline interview” (Slee et al., 2008, p.203). The external validity of the study stems from the extended time of data collection and the inconsistency in variables. In other words, the longitudinal study would prove invalid if respondents die before completion or become inaccessible for one reason or another. Thus, conclusions in the nine months will be strictly for the target group as the sample would no longer represent the population. Concurrently, the introduction of CBT and TAU to some participants and TAU only to others disrupts the possibility of making a variable correlation between the two interventions. In other words, any noticeable difference will not be accountable for a particular response because if the CBT and TAU group show the same results as the TAU only faction, it would be impossible to tell which measure was most or least effective.
Wood et al. (2001) focused on the participants using a cross-sectional design as participants received either group therapy or routine care only (p.1248). The use of “all randomized casesregardless of whether they started or completed treatment” forms the basis of the study’s external validity (Wood et al., 2011, p.1248). It is a guarantee that the final result will not reflect the target population accurately as the adolescents who did not participate in the study compromise the eligibility of the sample.
Internal validity
Internal validity is central to research designs; one could obtain it by dividing the sample into at least two groups (one faction will receive group therapy and the other remain subject to routine treatment) that are equal in respect of the dependent variable. Elmes, Kantowitz, and Roediger (2011) reckon that the internal validity of research is the extent to which one can draw accurate causal statements about the relationships between variables (p.188). Thus, to ensure the internal validity of research, the investigator has to attempt the elimination of other possible explanations for noticeable results except those drawn by his or her study (Breakwell, Smith, and Wright, 2012, p.52). Accordingly, internal validity in this study is the extent to which the factors that influence the adolescent girls to self-harm manage to reflect the reality of the situation as opposed to the result of the effects of chance variables.
The researcher will establish truthfulness through content validity and will achieve it through the derivation of questions from the questionnaire directly from the categories knowledge identified in Slee et al. (2008), Wood et al. (2001), and Green et al. (2011). A self-harm treatment specialist will verify that the questionnaire items are representative of all the precise information of this study. The researcher will further enhance the validity of the survey through the exploratory phase where descriptive information about the sample group will substantiate their responses to the questionnaire.
The ethical considerations
The ethical considerations relate to the moral standards that the researcher will consider in all research methods in all stages of the design. After approval from identified stakeholders, the researcher will follow the following principles: respect for human dignity, beneficence, justice (Elmes, Kantowitz, and Roediger, 2011, p.174).
Permission[s] to conduct the study
The researcher will seek permission from the hospitals and other institutions of interest before proceeding with the study. Concurrently, underage children will have a consent form before they can participate in the same. The researcher will assure all involved persons of no disruptions.
Standard of Beneficence
This principle focuses on the possible fears of harm and exploitation that the respondents and their parents may voice. The researcher will reassure the participants of their safety and provide contact information so respondents can ask any questions before and during the conduction of the study.
Human Dignity
The respondents will be at liberty to choose whether or not they wish to participate in the study and the researcher will assure them of full disclosure on the mechanisms of the same. The assurance responds to possible fears of coercion and possible exposure of personal information. Accordingly, the researcher will not link any consent form to specific answers by the respondents.
References
Wood, A., Trainor, G., Rothwell, J., Moore, A., and Harrington, R. (2001). Randomized trial of group therapy for repeated deliberate self-harm in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(11), 1246-1253. doi:10.1097/00004583-200111000-00003
Elmes, D. G., Kantowitz, B. H., & Roediger H. L. (2011). Research Methods in Psychology. Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.
Breakwell, G. M., Smith, J. A., Wright, D. B. (2012). Research Methods in Psychology. California: SAGE.
Green J.M., W. A. (2011). Group therapy for adolescents with repeated self-harm: randomized controlled trial with economic evaluation. The BMJ, 1-12. doi:10.1136/bmj.d682
Slee N., Garnefski N., van der Leeden, R., Arensman, E., & Spinhoven, P. (2008). Cognitive-behavioural intervention for self-harm: randomized controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 192(3), 202-211. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.107.037564.
