Response- LDRS 591- Unit 5, LA 5.4

Unit 5-Response

Unit 5 Learning Activities

In response to Tom Williams Question- LA 5.4

What are some red flags shown in methodology that can lead to discounting the quality of a research paper?

My response;

I believe lack of prior research, sample size, measures used to collect the data, lack of reliable data should flag you when you do your research paper.

Have your standard measure at the beginning of your review, and ability to acknowledge your limitation will help out in troubleshooting the undesirable outcomes if its present. Understanding the critique of the statistics used help you to find what measures needed in the study and how to interpret them to relate to your research paper if its required.

February 4, 2018February 4, 2018

Learning activity 5.4-Unit 5

Unit 5 Learning Activities

As a consumer of research reports, the most important thing(s) for me in the methods and results section of a high-quality quantitative research report is/ are…

Research process it’s the first significant element to consider, what I meant by that is, research problem, a literature review related to the problem. Specifying a purpose, then choosing a research design that will process all your variables. I believe literature review plays a prescriptive role in making a decision.

A research design is an essential step in the process of conducting research. To make a right decision on what plan; participants, sample size, time of collection are crucial. The intent of the study, the use of manipulation, any specific procedure needed to make a decision. The variables of interest to be studied participate in choosing the statistical technique and instrument to be used. Keep in mind the reliable and valid result engage in interpreting the results that answer your research question.

The use of descriptive statistics to describe the variables as a first step in the process has an essential value to input towards the next level. Inferential statistics make the variables inferred to a population to may make a generalization and answer the research question.

Discussion question

How do you predict if the selected method and statistical technique will pronounce the statistically meaningful answer to your research question?

Reference

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

February 4, 2018February 5, 2018

Learning activity 5.3-Unit 5

Unit 5 Learning Activities

Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J. (2017). Leader purposefulness within servant leadership: Examining the effects of servant leadership, leader follower-focus, leader goal-orientation, and leader purposefulness in a large U.S. healthcare organization. Administrative Sciences, 7(10), 1-20.

Were descriptive analyses reported?

They used mean to describe the response of all participants for continuous variables, standard deviation to measure the relative results to the mean, all calculated for all significant variables. They had standard to suppress results or to consider them in a calculation (criterion used to determine whether they obtain statistically significant results). They outlined these analyses in tables (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.8,9).

Rate 3

Good Hypotheses testing procedures were used? Did inferential statistics were used? (e.g., correlations, regression analysis, ANOVA, t-test)

They formulated eight hypotheses, which they are follower perspectives on four Independent variables of SL, they analyzed for hypothesized positive relationships with four dependent variables. They perform the Bartlett test for proposed hypotheses to identify their significance level which is <0.05, and They set the p-value <0.01. They followed the five steps for hypothesis testing, no alpha level stated in the research; however, they used KMO and Bartlett test (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.8 ). They used Regression analysis to test the predictive impact of the independent variables on the dependent variables. So multiple regression standardized coefficient beta used on independent variables. Also, they used multiple linear regression hierarchical regression to test the hypotheses further. R squared measures for the strength of relationships between independent variables and dependent variables. F values were used to find how the primary hypotheses relate to each other to predict a positive effect on the sub-hypotheses (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.10-13).

Rate 3

What were the results? (What was found?) Were the results comprehensive? Did the results include sufficient information?

Results for hypothesized relationships:

Statistically significant positive relationships support each of the primary hypotheses and sub-hypotheses. The eight hypotheses supported by moderate (0.40 to 0.88). All correlations were statistically significant at the level of <0.001, which is exceeding the acceptable standard for the two-tailed significance of <0.01 (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.9,10).

Results from multiple linear regression analysis:

Each of the independent variables was statistically significant predictors, and the relative importance of the independent variable was consistent across each model with leader follower-focus having the largest effect, leader goal-orientation having the second largest effect, and leader purposefulness the third largest effect (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.10,11).

Results from Hierarchical regression analysis:

All R square change results support each of the sub-hypotheses as all models were and associated R square change findings were significant at a level of <0.001. R square change results also support the relative importance of follower-focus has the most significant predictive effect on organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and leadership effectiveness, whereas follower-focus has the third most significant predictive impact on person-organization fit. Goal-orientation and leader purposefulness have more limited R square change results but are statistically significant at these lower levels (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.11-13).

The results all included in tables, and consistent with research design.

Rate 9

Did the analysis represent a good quantitative process?

The data analysis in the results to a certain extent was manageable to understand all details and analysis the researchers included.

They provided an objective explanation of the results, and statistical information found all related to the collected data.

Rate 3

Did the results provide a good explanation of the study’s purpose?

All the results were directed to answer the research question.
Only statistical test related to the study’s purpose calculated and reported.

Rate 3

Quality rating

0=Poor

1= Fair

2= Good

3= Excellent

Overall quality

0-10= Low quality

11-16=Average quality

17-21= High quality

Total score=21

My overall assessment=21

Reference

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

February 3, 2018February 5, 2018

Learning Activity 5.2-Unit 5

Learning activity 5.2-Unit 5

Unit 5 Learning Activities

What sampling strategy was used and was it justified?

The study uses the probability sampling, and the purpose is the author wants to answer the research question; therefore they examined the relationship between four leader independent variables and four dependent variables to assess the relationship between dimensions of leader ‘s servant leadership focus and the effect of these dimensions on followers. They selected 5000 employees from a large healthcare organization; each employee has an equal opportunity to respond, 1713 participants provided complete respond and used for most study analysis. This random sample represents sample size from which statistical, the generalizations may be made to a larger organization ( Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.7). So the purpose of using random sampling to reduce bias which may exist in the population.

Rate 3

Is the sample size appropriate and justified?

They selected 5000 employees from a large healthcare organization, and each employee has an equal opportunity to respond, 1713 participants provided complete respond and used for most study analysis. This random sample represents sample size from which statistical generalizations may be made to the larger organization. According to Plano-Clerk and Creswell (2015), this is the most rigorous form of sampling in quantitative research because the investigator can make the most reliable claim that the sample is representative of the population.

Rate 3

Are good quality measures used to gather data? How do you know they are good quality?

The authors used Purpose in Leadership Inventory (PLI), which provided an overall measure of servant leadership dimensions. Regression analyses were conducted to provide predictive modeling and indicators of the relative importance of each independent variable on the related dependent variable. Each of the 16 hypothesized relationships supported at a statistically significant level (<0.001) with positive correlations ranging from moderate to strong correlation, the lowest 0.40 to the highest 0.88 leadership effectiveness ( (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.1). High-reliability coefficient (0.98), pointed toward the value of utilizing PLI as a collective measure of SL.

Other independent variables were measured by:

Cammann et al.’s assessment of overall job satisfaction(JS) was 0.86. Balfour and Wechsler’s measure of organizational commitment (OC) was 0.90. Cable and Judge’s measure of perceived person-organization fit (POF) was 0.84. Ehrhart and Klien’s measure of leadership effectiveness was on the shortened scale 0.88 (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.7).

The different SL instruments were engaged in the literature review as points of comparison to the present study.

Additionally, two-tailed Pearson r correlation calculated for each of the intercorrelations between the independent and dependent variables. Which is required, when a random sample from the population collected in the presence of a relationship between variables, and no outliers.
Series of regression analysis conducted.
All correlations were statistically significant at <0.001 level, exceeding the acceptable standard for the two-tailed significance of <0.01 (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.10). They used the possible analytical technique and method to answer the research question.

Rated 3

Are the data gathered using ethical procedures?

The invitation to participate was sent to give equal opportunity to respond. The instrument provided anonymous feedback on the leader to whom the researched participant reported on the job (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.6).

Rate 3

Are the data gathered using standardized quantitative procedures?

All participants were asked the same questions and had the same choices for responding the questions. All items have pre-set response options vary from strongly disagree to agree strongly. All applicants are given one month to complete responses. No training received by the participant on how to complete (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.7).

Rate 3

Does the study have a high level of internal validity?

They examined whether independent variables cause an effect on independent variables.
They used one measure per variable.
Other studies using other instruments were engaged to as a point of comparison. I believe this review has a high level of internal validity.

Rate 3

Does the study have an external level of validity?

5000 employees invited, 1780 participated, 1713 completed the response. The high rate of response from participants results in a larger sample size increases the possibility for generalization. They examined the demographic information obtained from participants to determine whether the individuals who participated are similar to the most significant group.

According to Plano-Clerk and Creswell (2015), “If the sample is similar o the larger population, then it provides some evidence that the results may be generalized.”

Rate 3

Quality rating

0=Poor

1= Fair

2= Good

3= Excellent

Overall quality

0-10= Low quality

11-16=Average quality

17-21= High quality

Total score=21

My overall assessment=21

Reference

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

January 31, 2018February 4, 2018

Learning activity 5.1-Unit 5.

Unit 5 Notes

What quantitative research design is used and is it justified?

The study used correlational research design, regression analysis conducted to provide predictive modeling and indicators of the relative importance of each independent variable on the related dependent variable.

The author of the study argues the leader purposefulness is related to study of servant leadership and should be included as a dimension of servant leadership research.

They examined four leader independent variables and four dependent variables to determine the relationship in leadership dimension of a leader’s servant leadership focus and effect of these aspects on followers, then the impact on the organization (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.2).

To determine the extent to which two factors related, 16 hypotheses generated to corollate the relation between the leader independent variables and dependent variables. Therefore, according to Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J., 2015, p.196), correlational design was selected.

Rate 3

Are good quantitative procedures used to select and assign participants?

The study was faith-based healthcare system.

The researchers want to generalize the results to a population; they chose effective leadership approach which is general in all organizations who promote servant leadership attributes. The participants provided their follower assessment of a leader on several measures of SL and their own experience of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, person-organizational fit, follower perception of leadership effectiveness.

They invited 5000 individuals to participate during a one-month period; they had 1780 participants participated, 1713 participants provided complete responses. Majority of participants were (the 40s,50s, 20s, 30s, and 60s or older. Majority of participants were female (83%), and different levels of education were the length of employment were from less than one year up to more than 20 years. Also, relevant information gathered for the leaders assessed by their followers. They included years of experience as leaders and participants were asked to respond to how long this person had been their leader (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.6).

I believe this set of information will fit into the correlation design coherently.

Rate 3

Are good quantitative data collection procedures used?

The invitation was around 5000 employees, providing anonymous feedback on the leader to who the research participant reported to, they hade equal opportunity to participate. With 1713 proper response, this random sample represents a sample size in which statistical generalization made to the larger organization. The period of a month provided for responses (Irving, J. A., & Berndt, J., 2017, p.7).

Rate 3 ( LA 5.1-Unit 5)

Are good quantitative data analysis procedures are used?

They used SPSS version 22 for statistical analysis:

The reliability coefficients calculated for each of the scales in the study( eight scales)
PLI measure construct validity for the measure
Two-tailed Pearson r correlations calculated for each of the intercorrelations of the variables in the hypotheses.
Regression analysis used to provide predictive modeling and indicators of the relative importance of each independent variables on the related dependent variables.

Rate 3 (LA 5.1-Unit 5)

Are good quantitative results and conclusions are reported?

The findings from the analysis support the study hypotheses

Four follower’s perspectives on leadership scale were assessed using Purpose in leadership inventory, and each of these four independent variables analyzed for a hypothesized positive relationship with four dependent variables.

Results of each approach reported

Claims of generalization made in studies with representative samples, 1700 employees from large US healthcare organization responded to five research instruments. (correlational research design)

Rate 3 (LA 5.1-Unit 5)

Are the study used a rigorous research design?

All elements of the study from problem to purpose to methods to results to conclusion fit together in a logical, coherent way; Correlational research design.

Rate 2

Does the quantitative research design address the study’s purpose?

The results and conclusions from the research design provide a rigorous explanation of the impact of relationships of variables; that fulfills the study’s intent and answers research questions in the discussion section. Does the purpose in leadership Inventory, both its composite measure of servant leadership and its subscales (leader follower-focus, leader goal-orientation, and leader purposefulness), evidence criterion validity with the important work-related outcome?

Rate 3

Quality rating

0=Poor

1= Fair

2= Good

3= Excellent

Overall quality

0-10= Low quality

11-16=Average quality

17-21= High quality

Total score=21

My overall assessment=20

Reference

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.