Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This article is really what it boils down to.
- See more at...
|
You just quoted an entire article again. What did you just say about sharpening your skills? |
This discussion is basically over. I know people have not looked at any of my links, so it doesn't really matter whether I posted it or not. Anyway, I am trying to learn about flaws in research design, and it's very interesting:
THREATS TO INTERNAL VALIDITY
Flaws in research designs are associated most with internal validity (Campbell &
Stanley, 1963; Cook & Campbell, 1979).
An Assessment of Research Designs in Strategic Management Research 351
the results of a study can be attributed to treatments [variables] rather than flaws
in the research design” (Vogt, 1993, p. 114). Studies with high internal validity
provide results that are not subject to flaws whereas designs with low internal
validity produce results that are subject to third-variable effects and confounds
(Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Cook & Campbell, 1979; Spector, 1991). Internal
validity is most affected by how research designs account for several factors,
including history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, regression, selection,
mortality, selection-interaction effects and ambiguity about the direction of causal
inference (Campbell, 1957; Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Cook & Campbell, 1979;
Spector, 1981).
The failure to control for any one of these factors, known as “threats to internal
validity,” can produce flaws.
http://mgt.buffalo.edu/departments/o...undi/bergh.pdf
|
Some studies are flawed or badly designed. Do you think you are able to read any given study and find the flaws?