Evaluation Of A Research Study

1854 Words8 Pages
In research, the quantitative study seems to be the most favored method to conduct a study due to its validity and numerical value. Quantitative studies are objective and considered to be a hard science which is measurable, and suitable to establish cause-and-effect relationships (Anderson, 2006). The quantitative study seeks explanatory laws via statistical analysis and the participation of a large number of participants (Anderson, 2006). The article by Burns et al (1999), which this writer will be evaluating, utilizes quantitative study to explore intensive vs. standard case management for severe psychotic illness via a randomized trial (Burns et al., 1999). Not all studies are worthy of being taken seriously, therefore, at this point of…show more content…
standard case management to determine if one method is more effective than the other with individuals with severe psychotic illness (Burns et al., 1999). The difference this study will make is an improvement in the mental health services rendered in the UK and Europe. The literature review provided a fair and generalized justification for conducting this quantitative study by exploring other variables. Burns et al. (1999) failed to go into detail about specific literature review that inspired this quantitative study. The potential bias the researcher presents is the singling out one ethnic group of Afro-Caribbean, by implying that this ethnic group tends to be uncooperative and poorly served (Burns et al., 1999). All the important concepts are clearly defined by the researcher. Burns et al. (1999) describe previous methods of controlled groups as a way to understand the strength of association between the type of case management and the number of hospital admissions (Burns et al., 1999). Previous methods created the relevance to understanding the purpose of conducting this study. Evaluation of the Purpose Statement and Hypothesis Burns et al. (1999) clearly state the purpose as, “to assess the effect of intensive case management (defined as a smaller caseload size) in patients with serious mental illness in four inner-city mental health services (Burns et al., 1999, p. 2185). The purpose is to argue why ICM is not effective in UK and Europe. The
Open Document