The reader would rightly see these results very differently from those of a study with a more vigorous experimental design and thousands of participants. Whilst there are slight variations according to the exact type of research, the methodology can usually be divided into a few sections. This is the very basic structure behind your methodology, and lays out the most important aspects of how you actually carried out your research.
The writing for the method should be clear and concise. The major point is not to stray off into giving background info, interpretation, or irrelevant detail. However, you would need to explain exactly how the box was used, to allow exact replication. You would also note any area where you deviated from what your readers will expect. Whilst not always possible, the methodology should be written in chronological order, always using the past tense.
A well laid out and logical methodology section will provide a solid backbone for the entire research paper , and will lead to a strong results section. The only real difficulty with the methods section is finding the balance between keeping the section short, whilst including all the relevant information. The other problem is finding the correct style of writing: APA guidelines suggest that you should use 'I' and 'We', but most supervisors still prefer an impersonal passive tense.
Check this with your supervisor before you start writing, to avoid unnecessary editing! Check out our quiz-page with tests about:. Martyn Shuttleworth Jan 4, Retrieved Sep 14, from Explorable. Test-retest reliabilities were nearly as high, ranging from.
Convergent validity was evidenced by the correlations within construct. For the two psychological functioning scales the correlation was. Discriminant validity was examined by looking at the cross-construct correlations which ranged from. A pretest-posttest two-group randomized experimental design was used in this study. In notational form, the design can be depicted as:.
The comparison group received the standard Thresholds protocol which emphasized in-house training in life skills and employment in an in-house sheltered workshop. All participants were measured at intake pretest and at three months after intake posttest.
This type of randomized experimental design is generally strong in internal validity. It rules out threats of history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, mortality and selection interactions. Its primary weaknesses are in the potential for treatment-related mortality i. Because these rates are low and are approximately equal in each group, it is not plausible that there is differential mortality.
There is a possibility that there were some deleterious effects due to participant knowledge of the other group's existence e. Staff were debriefed at several points throughout the study and were explicitly asked about such issues.
There were no reports of any apparent negative feelings from the participants in this regard. Nor is it plausible that staff might have equalized conditions between the two groups. Staff were given extensive training and were monitored throughout the course of the study. Overall, this study can be considered strong with respect to internal validity.
For those selected, the purpose of the study was explained, including the nature of the two treatments, and the need for and use of random assignment.
Participants were assured confidentiality and were given an opportunity to decline to participate in the study. Only 7 people out of refused to participate. In addition, all study participants were given the four measures at intake. All participants spent the initial two weeks in the program in training and orientation. This consisted of life skill training e.
At the end of that period, each participant was assigned to a job site -- at the agency sheltered workshop for those in the control condition, and to an outside employer if in the Supported Employment group. Control participants were expected to work full-time at the sheltered workshop for a three-month period, at which point they were posttested and given an opportunity to obtain outside employment either Supported Employment or not.
The Supported Employment participants were each assigned a case worker -- called a Mobile Job Support Worker MJSW -- who met with the person at the job site two times per week for an hour each time. The MJSW could provide any support or assistance deemed necessary to help the person cope with job stress, including counseling or working beside the person for short periods of time.
In addition, the MJSW was always accessible by cellular telephone, and could be called by the participant or the employer at any time. At the end of three months, each participant was post-tested and given the option of staying with their current job with or without Supported Employment or moving to the sheltered workshop. There were participants in the final sample for this study, in each treatment.
There were 9 drop-outs from the control group and 13 from the treatment group, leaving a total of and in each group respectively from whom both pretest and posttest were obtained. Due to unexpected difficulties in coping with job stress, 19 Supported Employment participants had to be transferred into the sheltered workshop prior to the posttest.
In all 19 cases, no one was transferred prior to week 6 of employment, and 15 were transferred after week 8. In all analyses, these cases were included with the Supported Employment group intent-to-treat analysis yielding treatment effect estimates that are likely to be conservative. It is immediately apparent that in all four cases the null hypothesis has to be accepted -- contrary to expectations, Supported Employment cases did significantly worse on all four outcomes than did control participants.
The mean gains, standard deviations, sample sizes and t-values t-test for differences in average gain are shown for the four outcome measures in Table 1. The results in the table confirm the impressions in the figures. Note that all t-values are negative except for the BPRS where high scores indicate greater severity of illness. The results of this study were clearly contrary to initial expectations. The alternative hypothesis suggested that SE participants would show improved psychological functioning and self esteem after three months of employment.
Exactly the reverse happened -- SE participants showed significantly worse psychological functioning and self esteem. There are two major possible explanations for this outcome pattern. First, it seems reasonable that there might be a delayed positive or "boomerang" effect of employment outside of a sheltered setting. SE cases may have to go through an initial difficult period of adjustment longer than three months before positive effects become apparent.
This "you have to get worse before you get better" theory is commonly held in other treatment-contexts like drug addiction and alcoholism. But a second explanation seems more plausible -- that people working full-time jobs in real-world settings are almost certainly going to be under greater stress and experience more negative outcomes than those who work in the relatively safe confines of an in-agency sheltered workshop.
Put more succinctly, the lesson here might very well be that work is hard. Sheltered workshops are generally very nurturing work environments where virtually all employees share similar illness histories and where expectations about productivity are relatively low.
In contrast, getting a job at a local hamburger shop or as a shipping clerk puts the person in contact with co-workers who may not be sympathetic to their histories or forgiving with respect to low productivity. This second explanation seems even more plausible in the wake of informal debriefing sessions held as focus groups with the staff and selected research participants.
It was clear in the discussion that SE persons experienced significantly higher job stress levels and more negative consequences. However, most of them also felt that the experience was a good one overall and that even their "normal" co-workers "hated their jobs" most of the time.
One lesson we might take from this study is that much of our contemporary theory in psychiatric rehabilitation is naive at best and, in some cases, may be seriously misleading. Practically speaking, this certain part of a research paper provides the overall reliability factor of the study. Even if you are simply writing an article like a science assignment essay or a literature assignment essay, it really does count for a researcher to give the full details how he was able to come up with the solution for the problem statement.
Research paper methodologies usually cover the process of data congregation procedures. This do not depend on what type of research you are going to pursue; be it math research paper or a marketing research paper.
What is important is that you can provide some details how you will use data for analysis to your readers. It may be troublesome to even write the methods parameter but this will greatly improve the quality of your research paper.
Apart from the data gathering techniques, research paper methodologies also give the readers an idea on what proper formulations are good for a particular set of data. The use of various statistical tools for example ANOVA and descriptive statistics can be shown in the research study.
The methodology section of a research paper answers two main questions: How was the data collected or generated? And, how was it analyzed? The writing should be direct and precise and always written in the past tense. Kallet, Richard H. "How to Write the Methods Section of a Research Paper.".
Writing Methodology at the Core of the Research Paper. A well laid out and logical methodology section will provide a solid backbone for the entire research paper, and will lead to a strong results section. The only real difficulty with the methods section is finding the balance between keeping the section short, whilst including all the.
Research paper methodology is the process followed during the whole research activity and essentially is the core component of the research paper itself. Practically speaking, this certain part of a research paper provides the overall reliability factor of the study. What is "Research Methodology"? A Research Methodology from Paper Masters typically discusses the kinds of sources you will use for a research project.. The research methodology section of a research project serves to explain how the researcher is going to solve the problem presented or prove the hypothesis that is put forth. Often times there are several hypotheses and the methodology will.
Research Methodology refers the discussion regarding the specific methods chosen and used in a research paper. This discussion also encompasses the theoretical concepts that further provide information about the methods selection and application. The sample methodology in a research paper provides the information to show that the research is valid. It must tell what was done to answer the research question and how the research was done. Explaining the sample methodology also justifies the experimental design. Because research is .