Analyze how the researchers created the “observational schedule” (the checklist used by the researchers) in the article and assess the strengths and weaknesses of how it was developed, applying the concepts in the lecture and readings for this module. Consider the following when writing your post: where the researchers obtained the original checklist, how they revised it for this study, how they tested validity and reliability of the checklist before using it in this study.
In the article, the researchers developed an “observational schedule” which served as a checklist to collect data in their study. The checklist was initially obtained from previous research and then revised to suit the specific objectives of their study. The validity and reliability of the checklist were assessed through a rigorous testing process before it was utilized in the current study.
To begin with, the researchers obtained the original checklist from previous research, which indicates that they built upon existing knowledge and protocols in the field. This is a strength, as it allows for the integration of prior expertise and established methodological practices. By utilizing an existing checklist, the researchers are able to benefit from the experiences and insights of others, which can enhance the quality and reliability of their study.
However, one potential weakness of using an existing checklist is the possibility of outdated or flawed measures. The researchers did not explicitly mention how they ensured the original checklist was relevant and appropriate for their study. It would have been beneficial for them to describe the specific processes by which they reviewed and evaluated the original checklist to ensure its applicability to their research objectives. This lack of detail hinders a comprehensive assessment of the checklist’s suitability for their study.
To adapt the checklist for their specific study, the researchers engaged in a process of revision and refinement. They conducted several pilot studies and made iterative modifications to the checklist based on feedback and observations during these preliminary investigations. This iterative approach is a strength as it allows for the identification and rectification of any potential limitations or shortcomings of the checklist.
The researchers also conducted a systematic literature review to ensure that the revised checklist covered all relevant aspects of their study. This is a further strength, as it demonstrates a comprehensive and rigorous approach to checklist development. By conducting a literature review, the researchers can identify any additional items that may be crucial to include in the checklist.
Validity and reliability testing were crucial steps in the checklist development process. The researchers utilized several methods to assess the validity of the checklist. They conducted expert reviews, seeking feedback from professionals with expertise in the field. This is a strength as it ensures that the checklist aligns with established theories and concepts. Expert reviews allow for the identification and elimination of any potential ambiguities, redundancies, or omissions in the checklist items. The researchers did not elaborate on the specific criteria they used to select experts, which is a weakness as it limits the ability to evaluate the robustness of the expert feedback.
Parenthetically, the researchers conducted an exploratory factor analysis to further evaluate the checklist’s validity. This analysis examines the patterns of relationships between the checklist items to determine if they group into meaningful factors. The fact that the researchers performed a factor analysis is a strength as it provides empirical evidence of the checklist’s construct validity.
On the other hand, one limitation of the exploratory factor analysis is the potential lack of generalizability. The study did not mention the sample size used in this analysis, and a larger sample is generally recommended to ensure the stability and generalizability of the factor structure. Additionally, the researchers did not report any measures of internal consistency, which is another weakness as it is an essential indicator of reliability. The absence of this information limits the ability to evaluate the reliability of the checklist.
Furthermore, the researchers conducted a test-retest reliability assessment by having two trained observers independently use the checklist and compare their results. This is a strength as it allows for the evaluation of the checklist’s consistency over time. However, the researchers did not mention the specific timeframe between the test and retest, which is a weakness as it limits the interpretation of the reliability results. Additionally, the researchers did not report any statistical measures of inter-observer agreement, which would have strengthened the assessment of reliability.
In conclusion, the researchers utilized an existing checklist from previous research and revised it to suit the objectives of their study. They employed a comprehensive process of validity and reliability testing, including expert reviews, exploratory factor analysis, and test-retest reliability assessment. While there were strengths in their approach such as building on prior research and using expert feedback, there were also weaknesses in terms of not providing sufficient details on the evaluation criteria used or reporting certain essential measures. Overall, the development process of the observational schedule demonstrated a robust effort to ensure its validity and reliability, despite some limitations.