Educational Research
Chapter 22Evaluating a Research Report
Gay, Mills, and Airasian10th Edition
Topics Discussed in this Chapter Gathering information General evaluation criteria Design specific evaluation criteria
Qualitative research in general Observational research Historical research Survey – Questionnaire and Interview Correlational – Relationship and Prediction Causal-Comparative Experimental
Gathering Information Necessity of knowing what was
done Examples
What was the problem? Who were the subjects? What research design was used? What were the results and conclusions? What are the implications of the research?
Basic formats to collect information for quantitative and qualitative research
Gathering Information - Quantitative
Introduction Problem
Provide a general statement of the problem that includes the variables and the relationships between them
State the importance of the study Review of the Literature
List the major issues identified in the review Hypothesis
State the specific hypothesis or hypotheses being investigated
Gathering Information - Quantitative
Method Participants
Identify the population and sample Describe the sampling and/or assignment
procedures Identify the size of the total sample and
of each group if applicable Describe the general characteristics of
the subjects
Gathering Information - Quantitative
Method (continued) Instruments
List the specific instruments used in the study
Describe the evidence of validity provided for each instrument
Describe the reliability evidence cited for each instrument
Describe the information needed to interpret the scores for each instrument
Gathering Information - Quantitative Method (continued)
Design and Procedures Identify the specific type of research design Identify any threats to internal validity Identify any threats to external validity
Results Identify the specific analyses being used
A comparison between the mean scores for a control and experimental group
A correlation between students’ math attitudes and achievement
A survey of parental attitudes toward an extended school year
Gathering Information - Quantitative
Method (continued) Results (continued)
Identify any descriptive statistics used and summarize the results
Identify the specific statistical test of significance, report the test statistic itself, and report its level of significance
The experimental group means were significantly higher (t = 5.68, p = .023) than those for the control group
There was a significant (r2 = 0.91, p = .001) positive relationship between students’ attitudes and achievement
Gathering Information - Quantitative
Discussion Identify the specific conclusions of the
researchers Discuss the implications described by
the researchers
Gathering Information – Qualitative
Introduction Research topic
Provide a statement of the general issue, topic, or question being investigated
Describe any reformulation of the topic on the basis of the ongoing interactive nature of the collection, analysis, and synthesis of data
Discuss the importance of the topic
Gathering Information – Qualitative
Introduction (continued) Review of the literature
Describe the nature of the review of the literature
List the major issues identified in the review of the literature
Gathering Information – Qualitative
Method Site and participant selection
Describe the strategies used to gain entry to the site
Describe the site Identify the participant(s) and list the
sampling strategies used to select them Describe the characteristics of the
participant(s)
Gathering Information – Qualitative Method (continued)
Data collection and analysis Describe the researcher’s role in the study Report the data collection strategies used Identify any instruments or protocols used by the
researchers Identify any threats to the quality of the data (i.e.,
observer bias and observer effect) Describe the strategies used to enhance validity
and reduce bias in data collection Describe the strategies used to classify and
interpret data
Gathering Information – Qualitative
Method (continued) Research approach and procedures
Identify the research approach Briefly describe the procedures used Identify any ethical issues related to the
study Results
Report the findings Describe the researcher’s
interpretation of the findings
Gathering Information – Qualitative
Discussion Report the researcher’s conclusions State the relationship between the
conclusions and the initial problem
Focus of General Evaluation Criteria See the evaluation criteria in the text
and on the web site Introduction
Problem Review of the related literature Hypotheses
Methods Participants Instruments Research design and procedures
Focus of General Evaluation Criteria
Results Discussion Abstract or summary
Type-Specific Evaluation Criteria
Descriptive research Questionnaire studies
Are pilot study procedures and results described? Are directions to questionnaire respondents clear? Does each item in the questionnaire relate to one
of the objectives of the study? Does each questionnaire item deal with a single
concept? When necessary, is a point of reference given for
questionnaire scales?
Type-Specific Evaluation Criteria
Descriptive research (continued) Questionnaire studies (continued)
Are leading questions avoided in the questionnaire?
Are there sufficient alternatives for each questionnaire item?
Does the cover letter explain the purpose and importance of the study and give the potential respondent a good reason to co-operate?
If appropriate, is confidentiality or anonymity assured in the cover letter?
Type-Specific Evaluation Criteria
Descriptive research (continued) Questionnaire studies (continued)
What is the percentage of returns and how does this affect the study results?
Are follow-up activities to increase returns described?
If the response rate was low, was any attempt made to determine any major differences between respondents and non-respondents?
Are data analyzed in groups or clusters rather than a series of many single variable analyses?
Type-Specific Evaluation Criteria
Correlational research Relationships
Were variables carefully selected? Is the rationale for variable selection
described? Do the conclusions avoid suggesting
causal relationships between variables?
Type-Specific Evaluation Criteria
Causal-comparative research Are the characteristics or experiences that
differentiate the groups clearly defined or described?
Are critical extraneous variables identified? Were any control procedures applied to
equate the groups on extraneous variables? Are plausible alternative hypotheses
discussed?
Type-Specific Evaluation Criteria
Experimental research Was an appropriate experimental design
selected? Is a rationale given for the design selected? Is the method of group formation described? Was the experimental group formed in the
same way as the control group? Were groups randomly formed and the use
of existing groups avoided?
Type-Specific Evaluation Criteria
Experimental research (continued) Were treatments randomly assigned to
groups? Were critical extraneous variables
identified? Were any control procedures applied
to equate groups on extraneous variables?
Were the results generalized to the appropriate group?
Type-Specific Evaluation Criteria
Interview studies Were the interview procedures pretested? Are pilot study procedures and results
described? Does each item in the interview guide relate to
a specific objective of the study? When necessary, is a point of reference given in
the guide for interview items? Are leading questions avoided in the interview
guide? Is the language and complexity of the questions
appropriate for the participants?
Type-Specific Evaluation Criteria
Interview studies (continued) Does the interview guide indicate the type
and amount of prompting and probing that was permitted?
Are the qualifications and special training of the interviewers described?
Is the method used to record responses described?
Did the researcher use the most reliable, unbiased method of recording responses?
Type-Specific Evaluation Criteria
Mixed methods research Does the study use at least one quantitative
and one qualitative research method? Does the study include a rationale for using
a mixed methods research design? Does the study include a classification of
the type of mixed methods research design?
Type-Specific Evaluation Criteria
Mixed methods research (continued) Was the study feasible given the amount of
data to be collected and concomitant issues of resources, time, and expertise?
Does the study include both quantitative and qualitative research questions?
Does the study clearly identify qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques?
Does the study use appropriate data analysis techniques for the type of mixed methods design?
Validity and Reliability Threats to internal validity in qualitative
studies Did the researcher effectively deal with
problems of history and maturation by documenting historical changes over time?
Did the researcher effectively deal with problems of mortality by using a large enough sample?
Was the researcher in the field long enough to effectively minimize observer effects?
Did the researcher take the time to become familiar and comfortable with participants?
Validity and Reliability Threats to internal validity in
qualitative studies (continued) Were the interview questions pretested? Did the researcher interview key informants
to verify field observations? Were participants demographically
screened to ensure that they were representative of the larger population?
Validity and Reliability Threats to internal validity in
qualitative studies (continued) Was the data collected using different
media to facilitate cross-validation? Were participants allowed to evaluate
the researcher results before publication?
Is sufficient data presented to support findings and conclusions?
Validity and Reliability Threats to reliability in
qualitative studies (continued) Is the researcher’s relationship with
the group and setting fully described? Is all field documentation
comprehensive, fully cross-referenced and annotated, and rigorously detailed?
Validity and Reliability Threats to reliability in qualitative
studies Is construction, planning, and testing of all
instruments documented? Are key informants fully described,
including information on groups they represent and their community status?
Are sampling techniques fully documented as being sufficient for the study?