1. Evaluating a Research Report
Educational Research
Chapter 22
Evaluating a Research Report
Gay, Mills, and Airasian
10th Edition

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Gathering Information - Quantitative
Discussion
Identify the specific conclusions of the researchers
Discuss the implications described by the researchers

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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)

13. 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

14. 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

15. Gathering Information – Qualitative
Discussion
Report the researcher’s conclusions
State the relationship between the conclusions and the initial problem

16. 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

17. Focus of General Evaluation Criteria
Results
Discussion
Abstract or summary

18. 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?

19. 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?

20. 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?

21. 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?

22. 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?

23. 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?

24. 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?

25. 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?

26. 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?

27. 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?

28. 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?

29. 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?

30. 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?

31. 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?

32. 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?

33. 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?