Assignment: Quantitative Research

Assignment: Quantitative Research

Assignment: Quantitative Research

Assignment Description:
Quantitative Research

Write a fully developed and detailed APA essay addressing each of the following points/questions. There is no required word count; be sure to completely answer all the questions for each question in detail. Separate each section in your paper with a clear heading that allows your professor to know which bullet you are addressing in that section of your paper. Support your ideas with at least one (1) source using citations in your essay. Make sure to cite using the APA writing style for the essay. The cover page and reference page are required. Review the rubric criteria for this assignment.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE Assignment: Quantitative Research HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

Conduct a literature search to select a quantitative research study related to the problem identified in Module 1 and conduct an initial critical appraisal. Respond to the overview questions for the critical appraisal of quantitative studies, including:

Is this quantitative research report a case study, case control study, cohort study, randomized control trial or systematic review?
Where does the study fall in the hierarchy of evidence in terms of reliability and risk of bias?
Why was the study done? (Define the problem and purpose.)
Were the steps of the study clearly identified?
What was the sample size?
Are the measurements of major variables reliable and valid? Explain.
How were the data analyzed?
Were there any untoward events during the conduct of the study?
How do the results fit with previous research in the area? (This may be reflected in the literature review.)
What does this research mean to clinical practice?
Additionally, be sure to include the rapid appraisal questions for the specific research design of the quantitative study that you have chosen. These can be found in Chapter 5 of the textbook (Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt, 2015).

This critical appraisal should be written in complete sentences (not just a numbered list) using APA format.

Provide a reference for the article according to APA format and a copy of the article.

M2 Assignment UMBO – 4
M2 Assignment PLG – 2
M2 Assignment CLO – 4, 5

Assignment Instructions and Specifications
Submitting Your Work
Assignment Rubric
Start by reading and following these instructions:
Study the required chapter(s) of the textbook and any additional recommended resources. Some answers may require you to do additional research on the Internet or in other reference sources. Choose your sources carefully.
Consider the discussion and the any insights you gained from it.
Review the Assignment Rubric and the specifications below to ensure that your response aligns with all assignment expectations.
Create your Assignment submission and be sure to cite your sources, use APA style as required, check your spelling, and review the rubric.
The following specifications are required for this assignment:
Length: Clearly and fully answer all questions; attach a copy of the article
Structure: Include a title page and reference page in APA format. Your essay must include an introduction and a conclusion.
References: Use appropriate APA style in-text citations and references for all resources utilized to answer the questions. A minimum of one (1) scholarly source for the article is required for this assignment.
Format: Save your assignment as a Microsoft Word document (.doc or .docx)
Filename: Name your saved file according to your first initial, last name, and the assignment number (for example, “RHall Assignment 1.docx”)
After completing the assignment above, select the link below to access the next module overview.

A Sample Of This Assignment Written By One Of Our Top-rated Writers

Quantitative Research

Selecting and appraising evidence sources are profound steps for evidence-based practice (EBP). More essentially, conducting a critical appraisal of the selected literature enables researchers to assess the sources’ credibility and determine their consistency with foreground questions or research topics. According to Cavaleri et al. (2019), critically appraising evidence entails the process of rigorous and methodical analysis of the study. In this sense, researchers go through a series of questions to evaluate and ascertain the quality of the study by examining its strengths and limitations that compromise internal and external validity and generalizability. Finally, an effective critical appraisal should determine whether the study’s findings apply in different clinical or patient contexts. While considering the importance of critically appraising evidence, this paper critically appraises quantitative research on the effectiveness of integrated cognitive-behavioral social skills training and compensatory cognitive training for negative symptoms of psychosis associated with schizophrenia.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE Assignment: Quantitative Research HERE

Quantitative Research Design of the Selected Study

A quantitative study by Granholm et al. (2022) is a randomized controlled trial where researchers randomized participants with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder to receive twenty-five 1-hour sessions of either cognitive-behavioral social skills training (CBSST-CCT) or supportive contact (SC). Two masters-level therapists provided these interventions to participants at five separate locations in San Diego County. Further, therapists used a 1:1 allocation ratio to assign participants to treatment conditions (Granholm et al., 2022). Besides the randomization process, researchers kept raters unaware of the treatment assignment but disclosed group assignments to the study clinicians and participants. According to Monaghan et al. (2021), blinding is a profound strategy for minimizing biases in randomized controlled trials. In this sense, concealing information regarding group allocations and treatment conditions can eliminate biases in expectations, adherence to the trial protocol, treatment-seeking behavior outside the trial, and assessment of the interventions’ effectiveness.

Study’s Position in the Hierarchy of Evidence Regarding Reliability and Risk of Bias

A hierarchy of evidence (levels of evidence) provides guidance on the likelihood of research to provide reliable answers to clinical questions and research topics. According to Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt (2019), the criteria for categorizing research designs in a hierarchy of evidence include the methodological quality of the research design, validity, applicability to patient care, and risk of bias. When considering the methodological quality of the research design, validity, and applicability to clinical settings, it is valid to categorize the selected study in level II, which accommodates evidence obtained from at least one well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT). Regarding the level of bias, RCTs are a “gold standard” because they eliminate biases through randomization and blinding. The elimination of biases improves evidence validity and generalizability.

Definition of the Problem and the Purpose of the Study

Schizophrenia is a degenerative mental illness associated with multiple adverse symptoms and consequences, including diminished quality of life, premature mortality, functional impartiality, cognition issues, and indecisiveness. Other issues associated with this illness are lack of motivation and anhedonia. The proliferation of these symptoms hampers patients’ social contexts and limits their ability to undertake activities of daily living (Granholm et al., 2022). Amidst the need to reduce the complications associated with these symptoms and schizophrenia progression, pharmacologic interventions like medication administration have mixed results. As a result, non-pharmacologic approaches, including cognitive-behavioral social skills training (CBSST-CCT) and compensatory cognitive training (CCT), can improve negative symptoms and cognitive functioning. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to compare an integrated CBSST and CCT intervention (CBSST-CCT) to a goal-focused supportive contact (SC) control condition, using a parallel-group design with all treatments provided by masters-level therapists.

Identification of Study Steps

Proper identification of Study steps enables researchers to review the evidence and identify studies’ strengths and limitations. The selected study encompasses a sequential arrangement of study steps, including objectives, methods, results, discussion, strengths, and limitations. Further, the researchers indicated the steps for randomizing participants, blinding raters, and analyzing findings. Finally, the researchers have indicated steps for providing interventions to participants, including assessment of negative symptoms severity, neurophysiological performance, functional ability, and motivation upon and during the implementation of CBSST-CCT or SC.

The Sample Size

The study involved fifty-five (55) adults with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder with moderate-to-severe negative symptoms. The settings for the study were five separate locations in San Diego County (a board and care facility, a county-funded clubhouse, and three county-funded outpatient mental health clinics). The enrolled criteria for participants included the following requirements; the ability to provide voluntary informed consent, age (18-65), DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder based on Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-IV), moderate to severe negative symptoms, at least 6th-grade reading level on the WRAT-4 reading subtest, and stable on psychiatric medications for the past three months. In the same breath, the researchers excluded some participants due to the following factors; prior CBT, SST, or CCT in the past five years, severe depression on the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS; >8), ocular damage or medications that affect pupil dilation, DSM-IV alcohol or substance dependence diagnosis, and severe symptoms on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS).

The Reliability and Validity of Measurement Instruments for Major Variables

The independent variable for the study is the implementation of CBSST-CCT and SC programs and their effects on the severity of negative schizophrenia symptoms, cognition, functioning, defeatist beliefs, and motivation (dependent variables). To measure the interactions between the independent and dependent variables, the researchers randomly assigned participants to either CBSST-CCT or SC group and assessed their effects at baseline, midway through treatment (6 weeks), post-treatment (12.5 weeks), and 6-month follow-up. Therefore, the measurement approaches are valid and reliable because they establish the effectiveness of these Interventions on dependent variables at different levels.

Data Analysis

The researchers examined differences in the intervention group using independent t-tests for continuous variables and Chi-square for categorical variables. Further, they included all available data from all randomized participants in analyses and focused on the effect sizes of all analyses. In this sense, they reported effect sizes as correlation coefficients estimated from t statistics and degrees of freedom for the mixed-model regression estimates.

Untoward Events During the Conduct of the Study

Untoward events are unfavorable or adverse occurrences involving research subjects. They include psychological, social, economic, legal, physical, and information harms. In the study, researchers did not report any untoward event. They avoided informational harm by disclosing research methods, techniques, and processes to the participants. Equally, they adhered to the ethical standards for nursing research, including obtaining written consent from participants and avoiding any deceitful approaches.

Results’ Fitness with Previous Research in the Area

Exploring the efficacy of the integrated CBSST-CCT intervention on negative symptoms of schizophrenia, including symptom severity, functioning, and objective cognitive performance, is a subject of scholarly inquiry. According to Granholm et al. (2022), prior randomized controlled trials (RCTs) revealed that CBSST and CCT demonstrated positive treatment effects on functioning, quality of life, negative symptom severity, and cognition in schizophrenia patients. Similarly, this study revealed that the CBSST-CCT group demonstrated improved verbal learning compared to SC participants (p=.026, r=0.36). Also, the baseline, mid-treatment, post-treatment, and 6-month follow-up revealed a significant association between CBSST-CCT and improved negative symptoms and improvements in diminished motivation compared to SC (p=.037, r=0.24). These findings are consistent with the justifications from previous research on the topic.

Other Rapid Appraisal Questions for Randomized Controlled Trials

1. Will the results help me in caring for my patients?

The findings from the randomized controlled trial reveal the association between CBSST-CCT and improved negative symptoms of schizophrenia and improvements in diminished motivation, cognition, and verbal learning. These results are consistent with previous randomized controlled trials conducted in different settings. When considering the inconsistencies associated with the pharmacologic intervention, including administering medications, the emergence of these non-pharmacologic approaches can provide opportunities for promoting the health and well-being of people with schizophrenia.

2. Is the treatment feasible in my clinical setting?

My clinical question explores the effectiveness of social skills training sessions in increasing conversational skills in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Conversational skills depend massively upon cognition and verbal learning. As a result, implementing integrated cognitive-behavioral social skills training, compensatory cognitive training, and supportive contact provides ideal non-pharmacologic interventions for improving the social skills and health of schizophrenia patients.

Research Meaning to Clinical Practice

The study explored the effectiveness of CBSST-CCT and CCT in improving the negative symptoms of schizophrenia patients. The study results are statistically significant and consistent with previous research. Although my clinical question emphasizes exploring the effectiveness of social skills training in improving conversational skills for people with schizophrenia, this research reveals the association between these non-pharmacologic interventions with cognition, verbal learning, and improved motivation among schizophrenia patients. Therefore, it is consistent with my clinical practice and foreground question. Further, the study is a randomized controlled trial (RCT), meaning the researchers reduced biases through randomization and blinding. As a result, the findings are valid, reliable, and generalizable.

Conclusion

Critically appraising evidence entails vigorous and methodological analysis to establish its strengths, reliability, relevance, and limitations. This process entails using various questions as guidelines to assess the sources’ credibility. These questions emphasize the validity of the study’s results, sample size and setting, study purpose and background of the problem, instruments for measuring variables, and the study’s feasibility in the clinical setting. While using rapid critical appraisal questions for randomized controlled trials, this paper critically appraises quantitative research on the effectiveness of integrated cognitive-behavioral social skills training and compensatory cognitive training for negative symptoms of psychosis associated with schizophrenia.

References

Cavaleri, R., Bhole, S., & Arora, A. (2019). Critical appraisal of quantitative research. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences, 1027–1049. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_120

Granholm, E., Twamley, E. W., Mahmood, Z., Keller, A. V., Lykins, H. C., Parrish, E. M., Thomas, M. L., Perivoliotis, D., & Holden, J. L. (2021). Integrated cognitive-behavioral social skills training and compensatory cognitive training for negative symptoms of psychosis: Effects in a pilot randomized controlled trial. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 48(2), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbab126

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2019). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer Health.

Monaghan, T. F., Agudelo, C. W., Rahman, S. N., Wein, A. J., Lazar, J. M., Everaert, K., & Dmochowski, R. R. (2021). Blinding in clinical trials: Seeing the big picture. Medicina, 57(7), 647. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57070647