Cross-Sectional Study Weaknesses
Weakness of the study design
The biggest flaw in any cross-sectional study design is the inability to establish a causal relationship. This made any causation deduced from the results a mere inference. Positive correlation derived from the study is not sufficient and convincing enough to be acted upon. The study is also vulnerable to recall bias or dishonesty. The accuracy of the data collected heavily depend upon the student’s ability to accurately recall events that took pace the day before and report it truthfully.
Data collected also does not reflect the amount of sugar drinks participants consistently consume. The amount of sugar drink consumed could fluctuate over the week, resulting in the statistic collected being under or overrepresented. …show more content…
The ‘gold standard’, randomised controlled trial(RCT) can draw causation and remove known confounders, vastly improving the accuracy of the result. However, RCT is an experimental study, it would not be ethical for this particular research.
The next best option will be a cohort study. Prospective cohort study could be conducted, recording the number of sugar drinks consumed and the effect on hyperactivity or inattentiveness over a period of time, hence it would be excellent in establishing temporal relationship. Nevertheless, cohort study would be time consuming, expensive and requires follow up on participants.
Another study design that is stronger than cross-sectional study will be case control study. Case-control study are suitable in investigating rare disease but will not be able to show causal relationship. It is also vulnerable to confounders. This study will hence not produce additional results that will be useful for analysis.
Having said that, for the research question raised, cross-sectional study is the only relatively inexpensive and fast study available, despite its various limitations.
Rationale for choosing cross-sectional …show more content…
Surveys conducted is not invasive and only require minimal effort and time from the participants. The survey also does not significantly interfere with the lives of the participatns as it only takes 30 minutes to complete.
There could be instances where the unwilling participants without parental consent were forced to be part of the study, hence consent should be seek to minimise such scenarios even though they might seem unlikely to happen. There could also be a breech in confidentiality should the result be made public without consent from participants.
If RCT is conducted, there will be significant ethical issues involved as investigators control the exposure. All other study designs would be unlikely to result in obvious ethical issues. However, researchers should be aware of confidentiality issues that might arise without stringent protocols in
The biggest flaw in any cross-sectional study design is the inability to establish a causal relationship. This made any causation deduced from the results a mere inference. Positive correlation derived from the study is not sufficient and convincing enough to be acted upon. The study is also vulnerable to recall bias or dishonesty. The accuracy of the data collected heavily depend upon the student’s ability to accurately recall events that took pace the day before and report it truthfully.
Data collected also does not reflect the amount of sugar drinks participants consistently consume. The amount of sugar drink consumed could fluctuate over the week, resulting in the statistic collected being under or overrepresented. …show more content…
The ‘gold standard’, randomised controlled trial(RCT) can draw causation and remove known confounders, vastly improving the accuracy of the result. However, RCT is an experimental study, it would not be ethical for this particular research.
The next best option will be a cohort study. Prospective cohort study could be conducted, recording the number of sugar drinks consumed and the effect on hyperactivity or inattentiveness over a period of time, hence it would be excellent in establishing temporal relationship. Nevertheless, cohort study would be time consuming, expensive and requires follow up on participants.
Another study design that is stronger than cross-sectional study will be case control study. Case-control study are suitable in investigating rare disease but will not be able to show causal relationship. It is also vulnerable to confounders. This study will hence not produce additional results that will be useful for analysis.
Having said that, for the research question raised, cross-sectional study is the only relatively inexpensive and fast study available, despite its various limitations.
Rationale for choosing cross-sectional …show more content…
Surveys conducted is not invasive and only require minimal effort and time from the participants. The survey also does not significantly interfere with the lives of the participatns as it only takes 30 minutes to complete.
There could be instances where the unwilling participants without parental consent were forced to be part of the study, hence consent should be seek to minimise such scenarios even though they might seem unlikely to happen. There could also be a breech in confidentiality should the result be made public without consent from participants.
If RCT is conducted, there will be significant ethical issues involved as investigators control the exposure. All other study designs would be unlikely to result in obvious ethical issues. However, researchers should be aware of confidentiality issues that might arise without stringent protocols in