University of British Columbia Ruling out Confounding Variables Discussion

Respond to at least two colleagues by explaining how that colleague might rule out one of the confounding variables that they identified.

Respond to following 2 students:

Andres

RE: Discussion – Week 4

Case Study Interpretation

Inthe given case, The Chi-Square examination comprised of 60 individualsthat were separated into two groups. One group involved 30 membersrepresented as the intervention group, and the other 30 members wereconsidered the correlation groups (Plummer, Makris, and Brocksen, 2014).The study’s purpose was to classify if the “vocational rehabilitationintervention programs” are successful in helping people get work. Basedon the given information on the output charts, those who participated inthe vocational rehab program had a substantially higher rate findingfull-time work than those on the waiting list -the comparison group.

Factors Limiting Internal and External Validity

In any study, it is essential to verify its accuracy or validity. The legitimacy or validity is

characterizedas the degree to which an idea is precisely estimated in a quantitativereport. For instance, a review intended to investigate depression;however, which really measures anxiety would not be viewed as legitimate(Dudley, 2014; Twycross & Shields, 2004). Therefore, consideringthe restricting internal validity of the presented study may incorporatenonrandomized appointed members, and the potential contrast between thegroups was because of previous variances among the members. For precisevalidity, the more a measure is substantial, the better theinvestigation (Dudley, 2014). For instance, one crucial factor to keepin mind is the vocational rehab members’ consistency in a given week.

Cause and Effect Relationship

Theabove variables may limit the capacity to make an inference concerningcause and effect relationship since the researchers must conclude if theimprovement is evident in the outcome result during the time ofexecution (Dudley, 2014). One must consider the following threeconditions before concluding a casual relationship: the programintervention must precede the client’s improve results; an associationshould be found between the introduction of the mediation and theclient’s enhancement for the result proportions of the individual; andfinally, the reason of the outcome or improvement should not beattributed to some of the other factors outside of the intervention. Anexample of an outside factor that may influence the results is when anindividual may be attending other support groups that have enhanced theclient’s outcome and not necessarily the intervention directly impactingthe individual’s life.

References

Dudley, J. R. (2014). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. (2nd ed.) Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.

Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen S. (Eds.). (2014b). Social work case studies: Concentration year. Baltimore, MD: Laureate International Universities Publishing. [Vital Source e-reader].

Twycross, A., & Shields, L. (2004). Validity and reliability – What’s it all about? Paediatric Nursing, 16(10), 36–36.

Respond to following student:

Tanisha

RE: Discussion – Week 4

Top of Form

Postan interpretation of the case study’s conclusion that “the vocationalrehabilitation intervention program may be effective at promotingfull-time employment”

When reviewing the Chi Squareresearch study results in regards to employment and those that areincarcerated, the study looked at inmates that participated in thevocational rehabilitation program versus those who have not participatedin the program, to see if the program was successful in obtainingemployment after the inmates were released from jail (Plummer et. Al,2014b). The study used 60 inmates, 1 of which did not supply anyinformation, where 30 of the participants received the vocationaltraining and 29 did not (Plummer et. Al, 2014b). The study looked at thepercentages of each group (intervention group vs. comparison group)that did not have employment, had part-time employment, and had fulltime employment and compared their findings together to see if theoutcomes found the difference to be significant enough to show that theintervention was effective or not (Plummer et. Al, 2014b). 60% of theparticipants in the training were found to be employed full time, 23%were part-time, and 17% were unemployed whereas those that did notparticipate in the training had 21% who were employed full-time, 24%were part-time, and 55% were unemployed (Plummer et. Al, 2014b). Becausethe p value (the difference) was .003, which is beyond the average of.05 that researchers use to establish their interventions significance,this intervention was found to be an effective intervention (Plummer et.Al, 2014b).

Describe the factors limiting the internalvalidity of this study and explain why those factors limit the abilityto draw conclusions regarding cause and effect relationships

Theresearch identified two main limitations for the internal validity ofthis study and they are: 1. No random assignment was used, and 2. Thedifferences (the p value) between the two groups could have been due topreexisting differences among the participants like selection bias(Plummer et. Al, 2014b). Yes, the study wanted to see if theintervention was effective or not and find a way to measure theeffectiveness and outcomes, but when you do not think of potentiallimitations, it could decrease the validity of the study (Dudley, 2014).If the participants were chosen randomly, or you added a control groupto the study, the numbers would provide more accuracy and validitybecause you take bias out of the equation and have more of a pure studywhere no one knows if the person did participate in training or not orwhat previous knowledge or experience each participate had prior to thestudy like if were they employed prior to being incarcerated (Dudley,2014). A control group is a great way to have a group that is completelyunbiased that can regulate the outcomes in a more accurate way as wellbecause the measure is including many different factors not just onewhich will provide more accurate outcomes to determine whether or notthat intervention really is effective or not (Dudley, 2014).

Dudley, J. R. (2014). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. (2nd ed.) Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.

Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen S. (Eds.). (2014b). Social work case studies: Concentration year. Baltimore, MD: Laureate International Universities Publishing. [Vital Source e-reader].