Special Needs Characteristics of Children with Emotional and Behavioural Disorders - Article Example

Critical Appraisal of a Research Article Student’s Name Grade Course Tutor’s Name Date A critical appraisal involves the careful and systematic examination of a research article in order to judge its value, relevance and trustworthiness in a specific context. According to Burls (2009), critical appraisals enable a reader to identify any bias, invalid results, or unsupported arguments hence identifying the value and relevance of the research article. This essay is a critical appraisal of Stoutjesdijk, Scholte and Swaab’s (2011) research article titled, ‘Special needs characteristics of children with emotional and behavioural disorders that affect inclusion in regular education’. The appraisal essay concludes by noting that Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) may have conducted a research that has value and applicable implications on the education and placement of children with emotional and behavioural disorders, but they (the authors) failed to comprehensively document the research process (especially the methodology and sampling approaches), hence affecting the believability of their findings. The title used by Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) in their articles indicates that the authors had intended to establish the special need factors that affected the inclusion of children with emotional and behavioural disorders (EBD) in regular education. True to the title, the article identifies such characteristics, and discusses them in the conclusions part. The title picked by Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) not only informs the reader what the article is about, but is also congruent with the contents of the published work. The abstract section of the paper corresponds with Jeanfreau’s (2010) description of what an abstract should contain. According to Jeanfreau (2010), the abstract should provide readers with “a brief description of the overall study, the sample, how the study was conducted, data collection and analysis, relevant results, and important implications and recommendations” (p. 613). The abstract in Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) meets all the cited requirements with the exception of implications and recommendations. Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) however mentions in general that the article discusses the implications of the research findings. Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) have written a detailed introduction for their article. Reading it enables the reader to understand the subject, and lays the foundation for the research that the authors describe in other parts of the article. The author distinguishes children with EBD learning in special education schools and those learning in regular schools, and through the distinction, the reader gets insights into the two categories. Drawing from a wealth of literature sources, Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) are able to provide a detailed background into the topic in their introduction and even identify gaps in knowledge that their research seeks to fill. As indicated by Jeanfreau (2010), the introduction section provides the reader with a purpose or rationale for conducting the research, something that Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) have done. In addition, Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) have organised the ideas in their introduction in a logical flow, thus making it easy for a reader to understand their arguments and appreciate the importance of the indicated study in filling up existing gaps in knowledge at that time. The introduction section ends with the authors indicating two research questions for use in the research, which are related to the purpose and aim of the research. The questions are based on the gaps that exist in literature, and in formulating the two questions, Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) prove Guest, Namey and Mitchell’s (2013) assertions that “the primary source of research questions is either a gap in literature and/or a need to develop theory” (p. 17). It is also in the introduction section that Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) indicate where the research was conducted, and the purpose of the research. Stoutjesdijk et al.’s (2011) article does not have a literature review section – or at least not a dedicated one. This does not however mean that the authors have not relied on information from other writers. Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) have cited multiple literature sources in their introduction part, in their findings (especially when comparing their findings with what others had found out in different researches), and in the discussion section. One of the most impressive things about the authors’ approach in the article under appraisal is that while they did not specifically dedicate space for an extensive review of literature, they identified areas where knowledge gaps existed, thus illustrating that they were aware of the knowledge landscape in the subject topic. In other words, the authors still managed to position their research for readers even without the literature review. Through their choice of research methods (discussed hereunder), Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) also indicate that they understand the manner in which they could create new knowledge for purposes of addressing the gaps they had identified. While it is clear what Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) intends to attain through their research, they do not make an attempt to define or describe the methodology they use in the research article. Instead, they describe the procedures used (questionnaires and examining children’s assessment reports), participants (a sample of 346 EBD children schooling in special and regular schools), the measures and the data analysis methods used in the research. A reader who is not well versed with research methods will therefore have a hard time identifying the exact methodology used in the research. The use of a purposeful sample, the data collection method through questionnaires and observation, the inductive and comparative data analysis and the descriptive findings suggest that Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) used a basic qualitative study. While not defined, it is arguably evident that the research method used by Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) enables them to attain the objectives of the research. In other words, the research method chosen for use serves to support the aim and purpose of the research that the authors conducted. In consideration of the aforementioned, one would argue that the research methods are appropriate for the research project that Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) undertook, with the only weakness being the author’s failure to describe the same to the readers. The sampling is also not clearly defined or described. While it is evident that Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) seek to compare EBD children in special and regular schools, the authors do not indicate how the sampling took place. According to Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2007), different sampling strategies are applicable in different research studies depending on the desired outcome. Describing the sampling methods – which Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) have clearly not done – is desirable in writing since it helps qualitative researchers overcome some of the problems they encounter. Such problems are identified by Denzin and Lincoln (2005) as legitimacy, praxis and representation. Legitimacy is related to the reliability, the generalisation and the validity of the research, while praxis refers to how the research can be evaluated. On its part, representation is related to whether the sample used in the study is an authentic representation of the situation or phenomenon under study (Denzin & Lincoln 2005). From the research, it is evident that Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) considered the research ethics especially since the study involved children. Specifically, the authors indicate that they sought parents’ permission before administering questionnaires to the children. One area of ethics that is not adequately addressed in the research article is how appropriate it was for the researchers to collect demographic features and family-related risk factors from assessment reports belonging to the children, which had been compiled by school psychologists. Even more confusing for a reader is the revelation that such information was collected by students of Leiden University. Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) do not indicate whether the students observed any research ethics. The results of the study in Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) are well articulated, with the first section zeroing-in on the differences and similarities discovered among children with EBD schooling in special and regular schools. The second part of the results indicates the determining predictors of education placement, while the third is targeted at predicting group membership through logistic regression analysis. The writers make the results easy to decipher through candid explanations of the findings, and this makes it easy to relate them with the purpose of the research as indicated in the introductory part of the article. In their writing, Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) do not have separate discussion and conclusion sections; instead, the conclusion forms part of the discussion. Other parts in the discussion section include limitations of the study, and the implications that the findings in the study have on EBD policies and parenting approaches. The discussion part as a whole does well in connecting the findings of the research with the aims and purpose set out at the beginning of the article. The implications part specifically indicates why the findings therein are relevant to policymakers and parents whose opinions and decisions affect the school placement of EBD children. The limitations section on the other hand expresses the restrictions of the findings mainly because the sampling was done in a specific urban area in the Netherlands. The writers therefore observe that a similar study elsewhere may produce different results thus providing a direction for future research. Generally, it would appear that the discussion section serves its purposes because in addition to bringing the article to a conclusion and pointing out the study’s implication and the limitations, the authors also indicate how the findings compare with others in existing literature. Such comparisons help in interpreting the meaning of the research findings. Overall, and despite the description inadequacies in Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011), the article does well in describing an important education issue – i.e. EBD in children and their placement in schools. The authors also chose an appropriate qualitative approach, which though not described, appears to serve the intended purpose of the study. Additionally, and as indicated by McGhee and Marland (2009), qualitative researchers need to acknowledge the possibility that their beliefs and values could have influenced the study. In this aspect, Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) indicate that they had no possible conflict of interest while writing or publishing the research article. The use of questionnaires in qualitative research, though not common, is acceptable as has been noted by Hughes (2006). Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) clearly chose questionnaires to collect the qualitative data that they have used in the article. In addition, Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) paired them with observations (in terms of the examining children’s assessment reports), and came up with sufficient data for the study. The authors’ analysis of the qualitative data and their detailed description of the same arguably bring some rigour into the study. However, the failure by the authors to document and even describe their thinking, decisions, and even sampling strategies, compromise the believability of findings as indicated in the article. According to Streubert-Specialize (2007), the rigour in qualitative research is best established by the credibility, fittingness, and conformability of the same. Based on the foregoing, it can be argued that Stoutjesdijk et al.’s (2011) major weakness is their failure to document or describe the methods used in the research in detail. That failure on their part compromises the believability of the findings since other researchers would find it hard to replicate the research. In conclusion, it is important to observe that the Stoutjesdijk et al. (2011) approach to documenting the research processes was perhaps informed by an impression on the authors’ part that most readers understand research and sampling methods. The authors may have failed to appreciate the importance of describing their methods to the readers. Their omissions therefore negatively affected the believability of their findings, but do not in any way mean that the findings are of low value. The authors’ failure to include a dedicated literature review section however has no effect on the ability of the researcher to peg the new research on existing knowledge. The authors have demonstrated their reliance on existing knowledge by citing different literature sources in the introductory and discussions part of the article. As the authors indicate, the findings in their study have possible implications on education stakeholders, especially the policymakers, teachers and parents, who make decisions about the school placement of EBD children. References Burls, A. (2009). What is critical appraisal? Retrieved July 11 2013, from Denzin. N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guest, G., Namey, E., & Mitchell, M. (2013). Collecting qualitative data- a field manual applied research. London: Sage. Hughes, C. (2006). Quantitative and qualitative approaches to social research. Department of Sociology Warwick. Retrieved July 11 2013, from . Jeanfreau, S. G. (2010). Appraising qualitative research in health education: guidelines for public health educators. Health Promotion Practice 11(5): 612-617. Onwuegbuzie, A., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Sampling designs in qualitative research: Making the sampling process more public. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 238-254. Stoutjesdijk, R., Scholte, E.M., Swaab, H. (2011). Special needs characteristics of children with emotional and behavioural disorders that affect inclusion in regular education. Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Disorders 20, 92-115. Streubert-Speziale H.J. (2007). Designing data generation and management strategies. In Streubert-Speziale H.J., Carpenter D.R. (Eds.) Qualitative research in nursing: Advancing the humanistic imperative (4th ed., pp. 35-56). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Read More