Understanding Asberg And Renk's Contribution To Psychological Trauma
Advancement in Scientific Knowledge:
Understanding Asberg & Renk’s Contribution to Psychological Trauma http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2012-03827-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site Kari Jellison
PSY7650
Research Methods
Capella University
Instructor: Dr. Loren Faibisch
HALLMARKS OF GOOD RESEARCH
There are many professional fields seeking explanations of events, behaviors, and/or phenomena. One way of obtaining possible answers, solutions, and/or explanations is through the development of theories and research. Research is identified as “a systematic process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information –data– in order to …show more content…
increase our understanding of a phenomenon about which we are interested or concerned” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). This construct of research results in varied interpretations and implementations; with each individual believing his or her method is the most effective or relevant. What has become a clear concern is that there are bodies of research, even within the field of psychology, that present with such poor quality that conclusions are difficult to discern and knowledge within the field is not advanced.
Fortunately there have been professionals, within the field of psychology that embrace research, who have pursued understanding research approaches and identifying hallmarks of good research. An emphasis within psychological research has been on ensuring studies present a clear purpose, methodology that can be understood, tested, and replicated, objectivity, advance knowledge related to the phenomena, and/or contribute the already existing theories (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). There are also ethical considerations that must also be met within research studies, regarding the treatment of human participants. The primary principles related to ethics have been outlined in the Belmont Report to include “respect for persons,” “beneficence,” and “justice” (Capella, 2013).
A researcher’s decision to incorporate all the hallmarks of good research and ethical considerations assist with increasing the integrity and scientific merit of the study. These traits can be found in many studies, both qualitative and quantitative. Asberg and Renk (2013) conducted a study that stood up to many of the hallmarks of good research and ethical considerations; appearing to leave little room for improvements. The focus and scope of this research paper will be to consider how Asberg and Renk (2013) demonstrated good research and use of ethical considerations, expose elements that may have been overlooked or missed, and discuss ways that future research can improve upon their findings.
PURPOSE OF RESEARCH
As identified above, one of the hallmarks of good research is that it identifies a clear purpose, sometimes referred to as purposiveness. Asberg and Renk (2013) chose to investigate potential predictors of incarceration; specifically looking at child sexual abuse (CSA) among other several other variables, like demographics, substance abuse, coping, social supports, etc. (p. 167-175); providing a clear and distinct purpose. Asberg and Renk (2013) identified that it was apparent, from prior research and research looking at CSA experiences reported from women in the community, general population, and college, that “the prevalence of CSA among incarcerated women far exceeds that of women in the community (20%-27%, Finkelhor, 1994), general population (32.2%, Briere & Elliot, 2003), and college (28.7%, Filipas & Ullman, 2006) samples” (p.167). Their decision to incorporate findings from previous research literature available provided a strong foundation for what information was already known in the field of psychological trauma; it also assisted with narrowing the focus of their study.
Asberg and Renk (2013) were able to state clear hypotheses related to their research problem. They asserted that “incarcerated female CSA survivors would come from more impoverished and unsupportive backgrounds and report less adaptive functioning” (p. 169). Additionally, they asserted that, “with regards to incarceration (Brunelle et al, 2009), it was expected that minority status, greater abuse severity, more negative reactions to CSA disclosure, foster care involvement, higher levels of current trauma symptoms, greater abuse of substances, lower levels of social support, greater use of avoidant coping, and more chaotic family environment would predict a history of at least one arrest leading to incarceration in CSA survivors” (p. 169).
The null hypotheses is that there would be no observable differences in outcomes between the two groups given the variances in severity of child sexual abuse. Demonstrating support for either the hypotheses or null hypotheses would clarify which psychological or psychosocial factors (socio-economic backgrounds, other adverse childhood experiences, perception of CSA, experienced trauma, abuse of substances, degree of healthy supports, and family dynamics) are related to, or possibly predictors of, incarceration of female survivors of CSA. Through their exploration of the identified hypotheses, and null hypotheses, Asberg and Renk (2013) are able to address a gap that is present in the current literature related to psychological trauma and childhood sexual assault experiences. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
To explore this phenomena Asberg and Renk (2013) selected a quantitative research approach to explore factors that could be associated with female incarceration amongst survivors of childhood sexual abuse. They sought out to discern the “best” factors that could predict incarceration for female survivors of childhood sexual assault, which required them to look at comparisons amongst dependent and independent variables; indicative of a non-experimental approach. This study did not contain characteristics of research approaches for experimental and quasi-experimental designs, such as the manipulation of any variables, use of pre or post-test assessments, or random assignment; further supporting that they implemented a non-experimental approach (Leedy and Ormrod, 2013).
For this quantitative study, Asberg and Renk (2013), implemented clear methodology for exploring trends in observed data outcomes amongst participants. Female participants were recruited from two specific locations. The first was from a county correctional facility (N = 169) and the second was a large university (N = 420). The scope and focus of the study was specific to those who had experienced childhood sexual abuse, which resulted in a significant reduction of the original sample sizes of participants from the county correctional facility (N = 110) and the university (N = 149). Participants were not randomly assigned, as the study aimed to compare independent variables (severity of sexual assault, coping, social support, substance abuse, etc.) amongst the dependent variables (two specific populations of incarcerated women and college women). The sample and sampling procedures selected by Asberg and Renk (2013) were efficient and acceptable due to the explicit purpose of this study. Additionally, they were able to articulate how ethical considerations were addressed in regards to their use of human participants; this is discussed later and in more detail within Ethical Considerations.
As discussed previously, Asberg and Renk (2013) sought out to identify “the best” predictors for female incarceration for survivors of childhood sexual abuse (p.
169). This required a willingness to explore a myriad of independent variables that could be associated with two potential outcomes, incarceration or college, experienced by female survivors of childhood sexual abuse. To gather data participants provided self-reports through the completion of questionnaires that identified data in areas of demographics, childhood sexual experiences, depression, trauma symptoms, revictimization, substance abuse, criminal justice involvement, ways of coping with childhood sexual abuse, current escape-avoidant coping, substance motives/avoidance coping, social support, family environment, and social reactions to disclosure of childhood sexual abuse (p. …show more content…
169-170).
This data-collection procedure was effective at gathering information from the perspective of the identified victim and the questionnaires utilized were valid and reliable for assessing the identified independent variables. It may have been helpful, within the data collection process, had the researchers not relied solely on self-reports from participants. For example, the researchers could have obtained information on criminal justice involvement of participants from other sources (criminal background checks, courts, etc.) and reviewed the police and Child Protective Services records for detailed information about the reported childhood sexual abuse, identified supports, and reactions to the disclosure of childhood sexual abuse. Once the data was gathered, Asberg and Renk (2013), utilized SSPS to compare the data sets of the two specific samples (incarcerated females and college females). They utilized chi-square analyses, t-tests, and logistic regression analyses to help interpret the outcomes they observed amongst their data. These statistical procedures were appropriate for identifying the quantitative trends and outcomes of the independent variables and for providing clear comparisons between the two dependent variables.
ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE
Asberg and Renk (2013) identify that this study was “one of the first to investigate the differences between incarcerated and college student women who are CSA survivors” (p. 173). Through the comparison of these two specific populations they sought out to identify the “best” predictors of incarceration for female CSA survivors. Their findings provided support for information already known and believed, but was also able to identify that the “most important predictors” are severity of sexual abuse, substance use and the levels of perceived social support (p. 173).
This present study has further advanced the knowledge in this field through providing a clear direction for professionals to consider and possibly target when working with children, adolescents, and adults who have experienced childhood sexual abuse. Based on their findings, areas of interventions should focus on substance use and levels of perceived social support (p. 173); this evokes support for increased programs in the community to help build natural social supports for victims of sexual abuse and to address substance use. These programs could likely target both prevention, as well as, reactive services in the community. Professionals in the community could identify what programs currently exist, what programming is needed, and identify ways to implement evidence based programming targeting these areas in their community. Professionals may also want to consider, when a client presents with childhood sexual abuse, identifying early on the severity of the sexual abuse, their current level of social support and if substance use is present; this will provide them with the opportunity to connect clients with evidenced based community programs that strengthen social supports, effectively prevent substance use, and/or can clearly intervene on current substance use. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEORY
Quantitative approaches seek explanations that will “establish, confirm, or validate relationships and to develop generalizations that contribute to existing theories (Leedy and Ormrod, 2013). Asberg and Renk (2013) cited a wealth of studies that had been conducted supporting that childhood sexual assault (CSA) was associated with increased involvement in the criminal justice system, struggles with use of substances, higher risk for depression, educational problems, and revictimization in adulthood (p. 167). They also noted research which supported resiliency amongst survivors of childhood sexual abuse, and clearly identified that not all survivors experience negative life outcomes such as incarceration (p. 167). The findings of the research conducted by Asberg and Renk (2013) were similar to those of prior studies. For example, the prevalence of childhood sexual assaults amongst their sample populations of incarcerated and college females were “similar to previous research with incarcerated women (e.g., 59%; Browne et al., 1999) and college students (e.g., 41.6%; Young, Harford, Kinder, & Savell, 2007)” (p. 172).
Furthermore, the findings of the present study identified support that there are many factors which may contribute to outcomes experienced later in life by childhood sexual abuse survivors; these range from less desirable outcomes such as incarceration to more pro-social, resilient outcomes like attending college. Asberg and Renk (2013) were able to effectively address the research problem and answer their research question, which was to identify the best predictors of incarceration for female sexual assault survivors. Based on their findings, Asberg and Renk (2013) clearly concluded that “the present study also indicated that CSA severity, problematic substance use and level of perceived social support were the most important predictors for the risk of incarceration” (p. 173).
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Roberts et al. (2003) asserts that “the ethical caliber of psychiatric research ultimately rests upon the shoulders of psychiatric clinicians and investigators who perform protocols and are directly responsible for the welfare of study volunteers” (p. 607). This assertion applies not only to psychiatric clinicians, but to all clinicians, researchers, and investigators within the fields of psychology and human services who are utilizing human participants. There appears to be a consensus amongst researchers that there are clear ethical tenets which should be followed. These are outlined in the Belmont Report (1979) and include: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (Capella, 2013). These provide underlying support that human participants present with autonomy that should be recognized, that the overarching aim are positive outcomes for individuals or the identified population, and that any benefits or struggles are equitable within the identified population (Roberts et al., 2003).
Asberg and Renk (2013) demonstrated distinguished ethical practice within their research. Specifically they endorsed research practices that are widely accepted and valued by psychiatrists in safeguarding human participants and providing distinguished scientific work, such as informed consent, confidentiality protections, and institutional review board (IRB) processes (Roberts et al, 2003). Asberg and Renk (2013) identified that the informed consent explicitly “introduced the nature of the study, outlined foreseeable risks, and described the right to discontinue at any time without penalty” (p. 170). Recognizing the importance of confidentiality and the potential for participant data to be identified with some participants (incarcerated women) signing the form, approval for a waiver for informed consent signatures was sought out, and granted, by the IRB (p. 170). Taking into consideration the overall wellbeing of the participants, Asberg and Renk (2013) also ensured that “investigators remained alert for negative responses and were prepared to provide assistance” and that participants were given a debriefing form; they also noted that incarcerated participants were given access to mental health staff (p. 170). Attention to these ethical considerations was warranted and established an elevated standard for safeguarding participants who represent both vulnerable and general populations.
SCIENTIFIC MERIT & FUTURE RESEARCH
It is imperative that research literature demonstrates how a study encompasses a high degree of scientific merit. This is accomplished through the articulation of how the study advances the knowledge base, contributes to theory, and meets the hallmarks of good research. Asberg and Renk (2013) demonstrated a high degree of scientific merit. A thorough literature review conducted, and provided support that there is common awareness how adverse childhood experiences can be associated with both positive and negative adulthood experiences (p.167). Through this literature review, it also became apparent that there was a gap in the literature of exploring two seemingly polar populations (incarcerated women and women in college) who experienced childhood sexual assault (p. 168). This study also contributed to theory because it was “one of the first to investigate the differences between incarcerated and college student women who are CSA survivors,” and their findings supported prior research that the “most important predictors” are severity of sexual abuse, substance use and the levels of perceived social support (p. 173).
It is critical to recognize that future research will be needed for the field of psychology, and more specifically psychological trauma, to continue to grow and develop. Asberg and Renk (2013) note that “although the absence of legal problems (Murray, Janson, & Farrington, 2007) is just one of many possible outcomes for CSA survivors (Banyard & Williams, 2007), our findings suggest that incarceration is predicted by variables common to other adjustment outcomes for these survivors” (p. 173). This suggests that future research should continue to look more closely at factors such as involvement in foster care, family environment, mental health, and coping strategies implemented. It is also important to note that the procedures outlined by Asberg and Renk (2013) limited the generalizability of the findings, as the sample did not include other possible populations and also may not have a true representation of populations in community settings. Asberg and Renk (2013) acknowledge that given these clear limitations of the present study, there is further support provided for future research to explore other populations such as males and more diverse cultures or races (p. 173).
Another area that is often overlooked in research literature is the aspect of ethical considerations related to human participants; Adair, Dushenko, & Lindsay (1985) found that the ethical practices and procedures are often not reported on in publications (p. 69). Based on their research and observed outcomes, it was apparent that if these components were clearly identified in the methodology of the research, that this would increase the merit and also assist future researchers in replicating findings or exploring how the ethical procedures utilized may have been a variable impacting the observed outcomes. As discussed above in ethical considerations, Asberg and Renk (2013) did clearly identify how ethical considerations were addressed in regards to their use of human participants. are often not reported on in publications (p. 69). It will be imperative that future research either improve upon their standards, through identifying ways to ensure participants are treated equally (i.e. equitable incentives, access to same type of counseling resources, etc.), or, minimally, replicate the procedures they outlined.
References
Adair, J. G., Dushenko, T. W., & Lindsay, R. C. (1985). Ethical regulations and their impact on research practice. American Psychologist, 40(1), 59-72. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.40.1.59
Asberg, K., & Renk, K. (2013). Comparing incarcerated and college student women with histories of childhood sexual abuse: The roles of abuse severity, support, and substance use. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, And Policy, 5(2), 167-175. doi:10.1037/a0027162 Banyard, V. L., & Williams, L. M. (2007). Women’s voice on recovery: A mutli-method study of the complexity of recovery from child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31,
275-29. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.02.016
Briere, J. & Elliot, D. M. (2003). Prevalence and psychological sequelae of self-reported childhood physical and sexual abuse in a general population sample of men and women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 1205-1222. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.008
Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 22, 301-222. doi: 10.1016/S0160-2527(99)00011-4
Brunelle, C., Douglas, R. L., Pihl, R. O., & Stewarts, S. H. (2009). Personality and substance use disorders in female offenders: A matched controlled study. Personality and
Individual Differences,46, 472-476. Doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.017
Capella (2013). Bellmont Report (1979). Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=ee510894-4457-45b4-a978-2559448d9e4f%40sessionmgr111&hid=117.
Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2008). Exposure to childhood sexual and physical abuse and adjustment in early adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 607-
619. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.12.018
Filipas, H. H., & Ullman, S. E. (2006). Child sexual abuse, coping responses, self-blame, posttraumatic stress disorder, and adult sexual revictimization. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 21, 652-672. doi: 10.1177/0886260506286879
Finkelhor, D. (1994). Current information on the scope and nature of child sexual abuse. The
Future of Children,4, 31-53. doi: 10.2307/1602522
Jellison, K. L. (2013). Research methods: Unit assignments (2, 4, 7, and 10). Capella University.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design. New Jersey:
Pearson Education.
Murray, J., Janson, C., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Crime in adult offspring of prisoners: A cross-national comparison of two longitudinal samples. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
34, 133-149. doi: 10.117/0093854896289549
Roberts, L. W., Warner, T. D., Brody, J. L., Nguyen, K., & Roberts, B. B. (2003). What is ethically important in clinical research? A preliminary study of attitudes of 73 psychiatric faculty and residents. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 29 (3), 607-613.
Snell, T. L., & Morton, D. C. (1994). Women in prison: Survey of state prison inmates, 1991.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
Young, M.S., Harford, K., Kinder, B., & Savell, J. K., (2007). The relationship between childhood sexual abuse and adult mental health among undergraduates. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1315-1331. doi: 10.1177/0886260507304552
APPENDIX A
Scientific Knowledge, Contributions, and Methodology Form—Unit 7
Use the research study approved for the Unit 2 assignment to complete this form. Type directly beneath the questions. Provide APA-style citations as needed.
1. Write the APA-style reference for your article.
Asberg, K., & Renk, K. (2013). Comparing incarcerated and college student women with histories of childhood sexual abuse: The roles of abuse severity, support, and substance use. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, And Policy, 5(2), 167-175. doi:10.1037/a0027162 2. Paste the persistent link for your article here.
http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2012-03827-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site
3. What was the methodology used in the article (qualitative or quantitative)?
Asberg and Renk (2013) utilized quantitative methodology for gathering and analyzing data.
4. What was the approach used in the article? (If your article was qualitative, the approaches include case study, phenomenology, ethnography, and grounded theory. If your article was quantitative, the three approaches are experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental.)
Asberg and Renk (2013) selected a quantitative research approach to explore factors that could be associated with female incarceration amongst survivors of childhood sexual abuse. They sought out to discern the “best” factors that could predict incarceration for female survivors of childhood sexual assault, which required them to look at comparisons amongst dependent and independent variables; indicative of a non-experimental approach. This study did not contain characteristics of research approaches for experimental and quasi-experimental designs, such as the manipulation of any variables, use of pre or post-test assessments, or random assignment; further supporting that they implemented a non-experimental approach (Leedy and Ormrod, 2013).
5. In order for research to have scientific merit in psychology, it must contribute new, meaningful knowledge to the field of psychology. In a few sentences, summarize the new knowledge that was contributed by this research. Then, write one or two paragraphs explaining how this knowledge is meaningful to psychology as a science. Also address the importance of the application of this knowledge by psychologists (and other professionals) in real-world settings.
Asberg and Renk (2013) identify that this study was “one of the first to investigate the differences between incarcerated and college student women who are CSA survivors” (p. 173). Through this comparison of these two specific populations they sought out to identify the “best” predictors of incarceration for female CSA survivors. Their findings provided support for information already known and believed, but was also able to identify that the “most important predictors” are severity of sexual abuse, substance use and the levels of perceived social support (p. 173).
In considering how this study and knowledge is meaningful to psychology as a science, it provides both direction for future research. Asberg and Renk (2013) note that “although the absence of legal problems (Murray, Janson, & Farrington, 2007) is just one of many possible outcomes for CSA survivors (Banyard & Williams, 2007), out findings suggest that incarceration is predicted by variables common to other adjustment outcomes for these survivors” (p. 173). This suggests that future research should continue to look more closely at factors such as involvement in foster care, family environment, mental health, and coping strategies implemented. Asberg and Renk (2013) also identified clear limitations of the present study, providing further support for future research to explore other populations such as males and more diverse cultures or races (p. 173).
In terms of practical application, this present study has provided a clear direction for professionals to consider and possibly target when working with children, adolescents, and adults who have experienced childhood sexual abuse.
Based on their findings, areas of interventions should focus on substance use and levels of perceived social support (p. 173); this evokes support for increased programs in the community to help build natural social supports for victims of sexual abuse and to address substance use. These programs could likely target both prevention, as well as, reactive services in the community. Professionals in the community could identify what programs currently exist, what programming is needed, and identify ways to implement evidence based programming targeting these areas in their community. Professionals may also want to consider, when a client presents with childhood sexual abuse, identifying early on the severity of the sexual abuse, their current level of social support and if substance use is present; this will provide them with the opportunity to connect clients with evidenced based community programs that strengthen social supports, effectively prevent substance use, and/or can clearly intervene on current substance
use.
6. In order for research to have scientific merit in psychology, it must advance psychological theories. In one or two paragraphs, describe the theoretical foundations of the research and how the research advanced those. For example, the research may have tested, confirmed, extended, or modified a theory. Perhaps it generated a new theory.
Quantitative approaches seek explanations that will “establish, confirm, or validate relationships and to develop generalizations that contribute to existing theories (Leedy and Ormrod, 2013). Asberg and Renk (2013) cited a wealth of studies that had been conducted supporting that childhood sexual assault (CSA) was associated with increased involvement in the criminal justice system, struggles with use of substances, higher risk for depression, educational problems, and revictimization in adulthood (p. 167). They also noted research which supported resiliency amongst survivors of childhood sexual abuse, and clearly identified that not all survivors experience negative life outcomes such as incarceration (p. 167). The findings of the research conducted by Asberg and Renk (2013) were similar to those of prior studies. For example, the prevalence of childhood sexual assaults amongst their sample populations of incarcerated and college females were “similar to previous research with incarcerated women (e.g., 59%; Browne et al., 1999) and college students (e.g., 41.6%; Young, Harford, Kinder, & Savell, 2007)” (p. 172).
7. Describe the sample and the sampling procedure (the way in which the participants were selected). Avoid quoting the article, and use your own descriptions. Evaluate whether the sample and sampling procedures were appropriate for the methodology and approach.
For this quantitative study, Asberg and Renk (2013), recruited female participants from two specific locations. The first was from a county correctional facility (N = 169) and the second was a large university (N = 420). The scope and focus of the study was specific to those who had experienced childhood sexual abuse, which resulted in a significant reduction of the original sample sizes of participants from the county correctional facility (N = 110) and the university (N = 149). Participants were not randomly assigned, as the study aimed to compare independent variables (severity of sexual assault, coping, social support, substance abuse, etc.) amongst the dependent variables (two specific populations of incarcerated women and college women). The sample and sampling procedures selected by Asberg and Renk (2013) were efficient and acceptable due to the explicit purpose of this study. However, it is important to note that the procedures did limit the generalizability of the findings, as it the sample did not include other possible populations and also may not have a true representation of populations in community settings.
8. Describe the data-collection procedure. This would start after participants gave informed consent, and end when the participants have completed the study. Avoid quoting the article, and use your own descriptions. If your methodology was qualitative, you might be describing interview procedures, for example. If your methodology was quantitative, make sure you describe any group assignment methods or any repeated measures (such as a pretest or post test). Evaluate whether the data-collection procedure was appropriate for the methodology and approach.
Asberg and Renk (2013) sought out to identify “the best” predictors for female incarceration for survivors of childhood sexual abuse (p. 169). This required a willingness to explore a myriad of independent variables that could be associated with two potential outcomes, incarceration or college, experienced by female survivors of childhood sexual abuse. To gather data participants provided self-reports through the completion of questionnaires that identified data in areas of demographics, childhood sexual experiences, depression, trauma symptoms, revictimization, substance abuse, criminal justice involvement, ways of coping with childhood sexual abuse, current escape-avoidant coping, substance motives/avoidance coping, social support, family environment, and social reactions to disclosure of childhood sexual abuse (p. 169-170).
This data-collection procedure was effective at gathering information from the perspective of the identified victim and the questionnaires utilized were valid and reliable for assessing the identified independent variables. It may have been helpful, within the data collection process, had the researchers not relied solely on self-reports from participants. For example, the researchers could have obtained information on criminal justice involvement of participants from other sources (criminal background checks, courts, etc.) and reviewed the police and Child Protective Services records for detailed information about the reported childhood sexual abuse, identified supports, and reactions to the disclosure of childhood sexual abuse.
9. Describe the data-analysis procedure. You need only describe the procedure or the statistical tests (if your methodology was quantitative). Avoid quoting the article and use your own descriptions. Evaluate whether the data-analysis procedure was appropriate for the methodology and approach.
Once the data was gathered, Asberg and Renk (2013), utilized SSPS to compare the data sets of the two specific samples (incarcerated females and college females). They utilized chi-square analyses, t-tests, and logistic regression analyses to help interpret the outcomes they observed amongst their data. These statistical procedures were appropriate for identifying the quantitative trends and outcomes of the independent variables and for providing clear comparisons between the two dependent variables.
10. Describe the findings and the conclusions the researchers made. Evaluate whether the conclusions allowed the researchers to answer the research questions and address the research problem.
The findings of the present study identified support that there are many factors which may contribute to outcomes experienced later in life by childhood sexual abuse survivors; these range from less desirable outcomes such as incarceration to more pro-social, resilient outcomes like attending college. Asberg and Renk (2013) were able to effectively address the research problem and answer their research question, which was to identify the best predictors of incarceration for female sexual assault survivors. Based on their findings, Asberg and Renk (2013) clearly concluded that “the present study also indicated that CSA severity, problematic substance use and level of perceived social support were the most important predictors for the risk of incarceration” (p. 173).
11. Include an APA-style references list here.
References
Banyard, V. L., & Williams, L. M. (2007). Women’s voice on recovery: A mutli-method study of the complexity of recovery from child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31,
275-29. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.02.016
Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 22, 301-222. doi: 10.1016/S0160-2527(99)00011-4
Asberg, K., & Renk, K. (2013). Comparing incarcerated and college student women with histories of childhood sexual abuse: The roles of abuse severity, support, and substance use. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, And Policy, 5(2), 167-175. doi:10.1037/a0027162 Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design. New Jersey:
Pearson Education.
Murray, J., Janson, C., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Crime in adult offspring of prisoners: A cross-national comparison of two longitudinal samples. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
34, 133-149. doi: 10.117/0093854896289549
Young, M.S., Harford, K., Kinder, B., & Savell, J. K., (2007). The relationship between childhood sexual abuse and adult mental health among undergraduates. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1315-1331. doi: 10.1177/0886260507304552
Understanding Asberg & Renk’s Contribution to Psychological Trauma http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2012-03827-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site Kari Jellison
PSY7650
Research Methods
Capella University
Instructor: Dr. Loren Faibisch
HALLMARKS OF GOOD RESEARCH
There are many professional fields seeking explanations of events, behaviors, and/or phenomena. One way of obtaining possible answers, solutions, and/or explanations is through the development of theories and research. Research is identified as “a systematic process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information –data– in order to …show more content…
increase our understanding of a phenomenon about which we are interested or concerned” (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). This construct of research results in varied interpretations and implementations; with each individual believing his or her method is the most effective or relevant. What has become a clear concern is that there are bodies of research, even within the field of psychology, that present with such poor quality that conclusions are difficult to discern and knowledge within the field is not advanced.
Fortunately there have been professionals, within the field of psychology that embrace research, who have pursued understanding research approaches and identifying hallmarks of good research. An emphasis within psychological research has been on ensuring studies present a clear purpose, methodology that can be understood, tested, and replicated, objectivity, advance knowledge related to the phenomena, and/or contribute the already existing theories (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). There are also ethical considerations that must also be met within research studies, regarding the treatment of human participants. The primary principles related to ethics have been outlined in the Belmont Report to include “respect for persons,” “beneficence,” and “justice” (Capella, 2013).
A researcher’s decision to incorporate all the hallmarks of good research and ethical considerations assist with increasing the integrity and scientific merit of the study. These traits can be found in many studies, both qualitative and quantitative. Asberg and Renk (2013) conducted a study that stood up to many of the hallmarks of good research and ethical considerations; appearing to leave little room for improvements. The focus and scope of this research paper will be to consider how Asberg and Renk (2013) demonstrated good research and use of ethical considerations, expose elements that may have been overlooked or missed, and discuss ways that future research can improve upon their findings.
PURPOSE OF RESEARCH
As identified above, one of the hallmarks of good research is that it identifies a clear purpose, sometimes referred to as purposiveness. Asberg and Renk (2013) chose to investigate potential predictors of incarceration; specifically looking at child sexual abuse (CSA) among other several other variables, like demographics, substance abuse, coping, social supports, etc. (p. 167-175); providing a clear and distinct purpose. Asberg and Renk (2013) identified that it was apparent, from prior research and research looking at CSA experiences reported from women in the community, general population, and college, that “the prevalence of CSA among incarcerated women far exceeds that of women in the community (20%-27%, Finkelhor, 1994), general population (32.2%, Briere & Elliot, 2003), and college (28.7%, Filipas & Ullman, 2006) samples” (p.167). Their decision to incorporate findings from previous research literature available provided a strong foundation for what information was already known in the field of psychological trauma; it also assisted with narrowing the focus of their study.
Asberg and Renk (2013) were able to state clear hypotheses related to their research problem. They asserted that “incarcerated female CSA survivors would come from more impoverished and unsupportive backgrounds and report less adaptive functioning” (p. 169). Additionally, they asserted that, “with regards to incarceration (Brunelle et al, 2009), it was expected that minority status, greater abuse severity, more negative reactions to CSA disclosure, foster care involvement, higher levels of current trauma symptoms, greater abuse of substances, lower levels of social support, greater use of avoidant coping, and more chaotic family environment would predict a history of at least one arrest leading to incarceration in CSA survivors” (p. 169).
The null hypotheses is that there would be no observable differences in outcomes between the two groups given the variances in severity of child sexual abuse. Demonstrating support for either the hypotheses or null hypotheses would clarify which psychological or psychosocial factors (socio-economic backgrounds, other adverse childhood experiences, perception of CSA, experienced trauma, abuse of substances, degree of healthy supports, and family dynamics) are related to, or possibly predictors of, incarceration of female survivors of CSA. Through their exploration of the identified hypotheses, and null hypotheses, Asberg and Renk (2013) are able to address a gap that is present in the current literature related to psychological trauma and childhood sexual assault experiences. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
To explore this phenomena Asberg and Renk (2013) selected a quantitative research approach to explore factors that could be associated with female incarceration amongst survivors of childhood sexual abuse. They sought out to discern the “best” factors that could predict incarceration for female survivors of childhood sexual assault, which required them to look at comparisons amongst dependent and independent variables; indicative of a non-experimental approach. This study did not contain characteristics of research approaches for experimental and quasi-experimental designs, such as the manipulation of any variables, use of pre or post-test assessments, or random assignment; further supporting that they implemented a non-experimental approach (Leedy and Ormrod, 2013).
For this quantitative study, Asberg and Renk (2013), implemented clear methodology for exploring trends in observed data outcomes amongst participants. Female participants were recruited from two specific locations. The first was from a county correctional facility (N = 169) and the second was a large university (N = 420). The scope and focus of the study was specific to those who had experienced childhood sexual abuse, which resulted in a significant reduction of the original sample sizes of participants from the county correctional facility (N = 110) and the university (N = 149). Participants were not randomly assigned, as the study aimed to compare independent variables (severity of sexual assault, coping, social support, substance abuse, etc.) amongst the dependent variables (two specific populations of incarcerated women and college women). The sample and sampling procedures selected by Asberg and Renk (2013) were efficient and acceptable due to the explicit purpose of this study. Additionally, they were able to articulate how ethical considerations were addressed in regards to their use of human participants; this is discussed later and in more detail within Ethical Considerations.
As discussed previously, Asberg and Renk (2013) sought out to identify “the best” predictors for female incarceration for survivors of childhood sexual abuse (p.
169). This required a willingness to explore a myriad of independent variables that could be associated with two potential outcomes, incarceration or college, experienced by female survivors of childhood sexual abuse. To gather data participants provided self-reports through the completion of questionnaires that identified data in areas of demographics, childhood sexual experiences, depression, trauma symptoms, revictimization, substance abuse, criminal justice involvement, ways of coping with childhood sexual abuse, current escape-avoidant coping, substance motives/avoidance coping, social support, family environment, and social reactions to disclosure of childhood sexual abuse (p. …show more content…
169-170).
This data-collection procedure was effective at gathering information from the perspective of the identified victim and the questionnaires utilized were valid and reliable for assessing the identified independent variables. It may have been helpful, within the data collection process, had the researchers not relied solely on self-reports from participants. For example, the researchers could have obtained information on criminal justice involvement of participants from other sources (criminal background checks, courts, etc.) and reviewed the police and Child Protective Services records for detailed information about the reported childhood sexual abuse, identified supports, and reactions to the disclosure of childhood sexual abuse. Once the data was gathered, Asberg and Renk (2013), utilized SSPS to compare the data sets of the two specific samples (incarcerated females and college females). They utilized chi-square analyses, t-tests, and logistic regression analyses to help interpret the outcomes they observed amongst their data. These statistical procedures were appropriate for identifying the quantitative trends and outcomes of the independent variables and for providing clear comparisons between the two dependent variables.
ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE
Asberg and Renk (2013) identify that this study was “one of the first to investigate the differences between incarcerated and college student women who are CSA survivors” (p. 173). Through the comparison of these two specific populations they sought out to identify the “best” predictors of incarceration for female CSA survivors. Their findings provided support for information already known and believed, but was also able to identify that the “most important predictors” are severity of sexual abuse, substance use and the levels of perceived social support (p. 173).
This present study has further advanced the knowledge in this field through providing a clear direction for professionals to consider and possibly target when working with children, adolescents, and adults who have experienced childhood sexual abuse. Based on their findings, areas of interventions should focus on substance use and levels of perceived social support (p. 173); this evokes support for increased programs in the community to help build natural social supports for victims of sexual abuse and to address substance use. These programs could likely target both prevention, as well as, reactive services in the community. Professionals in the community could identify what programs currently exist, what programming is needed, and identify ways to implement evidence based programming targeting these areas in their community. Professionals may also want to consider, when a client presents with childhood sexual abuse, identifying early on the severity of the sexual abuse, their current level of social support and if substance use is present; this will provide them with the opportunity to connect clients with evidenced based community programs that strengthen social supports, effectively prevent substance use, and/or can clearly intervene on current substance use. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEORY
Quantitative approaches seek explanations that will “establish, confirm, or validate relationships and to develop generalizations that contribute to existing theories (Leedy and Ormrod, 2013). Asberg and Renk (2013) cited a wealth of studies that had been conducted supporting that childhood sexual assault (CSA) was associated with increased involvement in the criminal justice system, struggles with use of substances, higher risk for depression, educational problems, and revictimization in adulthood (p. 167). They also noted research which supported resiliency amongst survivors of childhood sexual abuse, and clearly identified that not all survivors experience negative life outcomes such as incarceration (p. 167). The findings of the research conducted by Asberg and Renk (2013) were similar to those of prior studies. For example, the prevalence of childhood sexual assaults amongst their sample populations of incarcerated and college females were “similar to previous research with incarcerated women (e.g., 59%; Browne et al., 1999) and college students (e.g., 41.6%; Young, Harford, Kinder, & Savell, 2007)” (p. 172).
Furthermore, the findings of the present study identified support that there are many factors which may contribute to outcomes experienced later in life by childhood sexual abuse survivors; these range from less desirable outcomes such as incarceration to more pro-social, resilient outcomes like attending college. Asberg and Renk (2013) were able to effectively address the research problem and answer their research question, which was to identify the best predictors of incarceration for female sexual assault survivors. Based on their findings, Asberg and Renk (2013) clearly concluded that “the present study also indicated that CSA severity, problematic substance use and level of perceived social support were the most important predictors for the risk of incarceration” (p. 173).
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Roberts et al. (2003) asserts that “the ethical caliber of psychiatric research ultimately rests upon the shoulders of psychiatric clinicians and investigators who perform protocols and are directly responsible for the welfare of study volunteers” (p. 607). This assertion applies not only to psychiatric clinicians, but to all clinicians, researchers, and investigators within the fields of psychology and human services who are utilizing human participants. There appears to be a consensus amongst researchers that there are clear ethical tenets which should be followed. These are outlined in the Belmont Report (1979) and include: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice (Capella, 2013). These provide underlying support that human participants present with autonomy that should be recognized, that the overarching aim are positive outcomes for individuals or the identified population, and that any benefits or struggles are equitable within the identified population (Roberts et al., 2003).
Asberg and Renk (2013) demonstrated distinguished ethical practice within their research. Specifically they endorsed research practices that are widely accepted and valued by psychiatrists in safeguarding human participants and providing distinguished scientific work, such as informed consent, confidentiality protections, and institutional review board (IRB) processes (Roberts et al, 2003). Asberg and Renk (2013) identified that the informed consent explicitly “introduced the nature of the study, outlined foreseeable risks, and described the right to discontinue at any time without penalty” (p. 170). Recognizing the importance of confidentiality and the potential for participant data to be identified with some participants (incarcerated women) signing the form, approval for a waiver for informed consent signatures was sought out, and granted, by the IRB (p. 170). Taking into consideration the overall wellbeing of the participants, Asberg and Renk (2013) also ensured that “investigators remained alert for negative responses and were prepared to provide assistance” and that participants were given a debriefing form; they also noted that incarcerated participants were given access to mental health staff (p. 170). Attention to these ethical considerations was warranted and established an elevated standard for safeguarding participants who represent both vulnerable and general populations.
SCIENTIFIC MERIT & FUTURE RESEARCH
It is imperative that research literature demonstrates how a study encompasses a high degree of scientific merit. This is accomplished through the articulation of how the study advances the knowledge base, contributes to theory, and meets the hallmarks of good research. Asberg and Renk (2013) demonstrated a high degree of scientific merit. A thorough literature review conducted, and provided support that there is common awareness how adverse childhood experiences can be associated with both positive and negative adulthood experiences (p.167). Through this literature review, it also became apparent that there was a gap in the literature of exploring two seemingly polar populations (incarcerated women and women in college) who experienced childhood sexual assault (p. 168). This study also contributed to theory because it was “one of the first to investigate the differences between incarcerated and college student women who are CSA survivors,” and their findings supported prior research that the “most important predictors” are severity of sexual abuse, substance use and the levels of perceived social support (p. 173).
It is critical to recognize that future research will be needed for the field of psychology, and more specifically psychological trauma, to continue to grow and develop. Asberg and Renk (2013) note that “although the absence of legal problems (Murray, Janson, & Farrington, 2007) is just one of many possible outcomes for CSA survivors (Banyard & Williams, 2007), our findings suggest that incarceration is predicted by variables common to other adjustment outcomes for these survivors” (p. 173). This suggests that future research should continue to look more closely at factors such as involvement in foster care, family environment, mental health, and coping strategies implemented. It is also important to note that the procedures outlined by Asberg and Renk (2013) limited the generalizability of the findings, as the sample did not include other possible populations and also may not have a true representation of populations in community settings. Asberg and Renk (2013) acknowledge that given these clear limitations of the present study, there is further support provided for future research to explore other populations such as males and more diverse cultures or races (p. 173).
Another area that is often overlooked in research literature is the aspect of ethical considerations related to human participants; Adair, Dushenko, & Lindsay (1985) found that the ethical practices and procedures are often not reported on in publications (p. 69). Based on their research and observed outcomes, it was apparent that if these components were clearly identified in the methodology of the research, that this would increase the merit and also assist future researchers in replicating findings or exploring how the ethical procedures utilized may have been a variable impacting the observed outcomes. As discussed above in ethical considerations, Asberg and Renk (2013) did clearly identify how ethical considerations were addressed in regards to their use of human participants. are often not reported on in publications (p. 69). It will be imperative that future research either improve upon their standards, through identifying ways to ensure participants are treated equally (i.e. equitable incentives, access to same type of counseling resources, etc.), or, minimally, replicate the procedures they outlined.
References
Adair, J. G., Dushenko, T. W., & Lindsay, R. C. (1985). Ethical regulations and their impact on research practice. American Psychologist, 40(1), 59-72. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.40.1.59
Asberg, K., & Renk, K. (2013). Comparing incarcerated and college student women with histories of childhood sexual abuse: The roles of abuse severity, support, and substance use. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, And Policy, 5(2), 167-175. doi:10.1037/a0027162 Banyard, V. L., & Williams, L. M. (2007). Women’s voice on recovery: A mutli-method study of the complexity of recovery from child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31,
275-29. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.02.016
Briere, J. & Elliot, D. M. (2003). Prevalence and psychological sequelae of self-reported childhood physical and sexual abuse in a general population sample of men and women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 1205-1222. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.008
Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 22, 301-222. doi: 10.1016/S0160-2527(99)00011-4
Brunelle, C., Douglas, R. L., Pihl, R. O., & Stewarts, S. H. (2009). Personality and substance use disorders in female offenders: A matched controlled study. Personality and
Individual Differences,46, 472-476. Doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.017
Capella (2013). Bellmont Report (1979). Retrieved from: http://web.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=ee510894-4457-45b4-a978-2559448d9e4f%40sessionmgr111&hid=117.
Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2008). Exposure to childhood sexual and physical abuse and adjustment in early adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 607-
619. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.12.018
Filipas, H. H., & Ullman, S. E. (2006). Child sexual abuse, coping responses, self-blame, posttraumatic stress disorder, and adult sexual revictimization. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 21, 652-672. doi: 10.1177/0886260506286879
Finkelhor, D. (1994). Current information on the scope and nature of child sexual abuse. The
Future of Children,4, 31-53. doi: 10.2307/1602522
Jellison, K. L. (2013). Research methods: Unit assignments (2, 4, 7, and 10). Capella University.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design. New Jersey:
Pearson Education.
Murray, J., Janson, C., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Crime in adult offspring of prisoners: A cross-national comparison of two longitudinal samples. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
34, 133-149. doi: 10.117/0093854896289549
Roberts, L. W., Warner, T. D., Brody, J. L., Nguyen, K., & Roberts, B. B. (2003). What is ethically important in clinical research? A preliminary study of attitudes of 73 psychiatric faculty and residents. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 29 (3), 607-613.
Snell, T. L., & Morton, D. C. (1994). Women in prison: Survey of state prison inmates, 1991.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
Young, M.S., Harford, K., Kinder, B., & Savell, J. K., (2007). The relationship between childhood sexual abuse and adult mental health among undergraduates. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1315-1331. doi: 10.1177/0886260507304552
APPENDIX A
Scientific Knowledge, Contributions, and Methodology Form—Unit 7
Use the research study approved for the Unit 2 assignment to complete this form. Type directly beneath the questions. Provide APA-style citations as needed.
1. Write the APA-style reference for your article.
Asberg, K., & Renk, K. (2013). Comparing incarcerated and college student women with histories of childhood sexual abuse: The roles of abuse severity, support, and substance use. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, And Policy, 5(2), 167-175. doi:10.1037/a0027162 2. Paste the persistent link for your article here.
http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2012-03827-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site
3. What was the methodology used in the article (qualitative or quantitative)?
Asberg and Renk (2013) utilized quantitative methodology for gathering and analyzing data.
4. What was the approach used in the article? (If your article was qualitative, the approaches include case study, phenomenology, ethnography, and grounded theory. If your article was quantitative, the three approaches are experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental.)
Asberg and Renk (2013) selected a quantitative research approach to explore factors that could be associated with female incarceration amongst survivors of childhood sexual abuse. They sought out to discern the “best” factors that could predict incarceration for female survivors of childhood sexual assault, which required them to look at comparisons amongst dependent and independent variables; indicative of a non-experimental approach. This study did not contain characteristics of research approaches for experimental and quasi-experimental designs, such as the manipulation of any variables, use of pre or post-test assessments, or random assignment; further supporting that they implemented a non-experimental approach (Leedy and Ormrod, 2013).
5. In order for research to have scientific merit in psychology, it must contribute new, meaningful knowledge to the field of psychology. In a few sentences, summarize the new knowledge that was contributed by this research. Then, write one or two paragraphs explaining how this knowledge is meaningful to psychology as a science. Also address the importance of the application of this knowledge by psychologists (and other professionals) in real-world settings.
Asberg and Renk (2013) identify that this study was “one of the first to investigate the differences between incarcerated and college student women who are CSA survivors” (p. 173). Through this comparison of these two specific populations they sought out to identify the “best” predictors of incarceration for female CSA survivors. Their findings provided support for information already known and believed, but was also able to identify that the “most important predictors” are severity of sexual abuse, substance use and the levels of perceived social support (p. 173).
In considering how this study and knowledge is meaningful to psychology as a science, it provides both direction for future research. Asberg and Renk (2013) note that “although the absence of legal problems (Murray, Janson, & Farrington, 2007) is just one of many possible outcomes for CSA survivors (Banyard & Williams, 2007), out findings suggest that incarceration is predicted by variables common to other adjustment outcomes for these survivors” (p. 173). This suggests that future research should continue to look more closely at factors such as involvement in foster care, family environment, mental health, and coping strategies implemented. Asberg and Renk (2013) also identified clear limitations of the present study, providing further support for future research to explore other populations such as males and more diverse cultures or races (p. 173).
In terms of practical application, this present study has provided a clear direction for professionals to consider and possibly target when working with children, adolescents, and adults who have experienced childhood sexual abuse.
Based on their findings, areas of interventions should focus on substance use and levels of perceived social support (p. 173); this evokes support for increased programs in the community to help build natural social supports for victims of sexual abuse and to address substance use. These programs could likely target both prevention, as well as, reactive services in the community. Professionals in the community could identify what programs currently exist, what programming is needed, and identify ways to implement evidence based programming targeting these areas in their community. Professionals may also want to consider, when a client presents with childhood sexual abuse, identifying early on the severity of the sexual abuse, their current level of social support and if substance use is present; this will provide them with the opportunity to connect clients with evidenced based community programs that strengthen social supports, effectively prevent substance use, and/or can clearly intervene on current substance
use.
6. In order for research to have scientific merit in psychology, it must advance psychological theories. In one or two paragraphs, describe the theoretical foundations of the research and how the research advanced those. For example, the research may have tested, confirmed, extended, or modified a theory. Perhaps it generated a new theory.
Quantitative approaches seek explanations that will “establish, confirm, or validate relationships and to develop generalizations that contribute to existing theories (Leedy and Ormrod, 2013). Asberg and Renk (2013) cited a wealth of studies that had been conducted supporting that childhood sexual assault (CSA) was associated with increased involvement in the criminal justice system, struggles with use of substances, higher risk for depression, educational problems, and revictimization in adulthood (p. 167). They also noted research which supported resiliency amongst survivors of childhood sexual abuse, and clearly identified that not all survivors experience negative life outcomes such as incarceration (p. 167). The findings of the research conducted by Asberg and Renk (2013) were similar to those of prior studies. For example, the prevalence of childhood sexual assaults amongst their sample populations of incarcerated and college females were “similar to previous research with incarcerated women (e.g., 59%; Browne et al., 1999) and college students (e.g., 41.6%; Young, Harford, Kinder, & Savell, 2007)” (p. 172).
7. Describe the sample and the sampling procedure (the way in which the participants were selected). Avoid quoting the article, and use your own descriptions. Evaluate whether the sample and sampling procedures were appropriate for the methodology and approach.
For this quantitative study, Asberg and Renk (2013), recruited female participants from two specific locations. The first was from a county correctional facility (N = 169) and the second was a large university (N = 420). The scope and focus of the study was specific to those who had experienced childhood sexual abuse, which resulted in a significant reduction of the original sample sizes of participants from the county correctional facility (N = 110) and the university (N = 149). Participants were not randomly assigned, as the study aimed to compare independent variables (severity of sexual assault, coping, social support, substance abuse, etc.) amongst the dependent variables (two specific populations of incarcerated women and college women). The sample and sampling procedures selected by Asberg and Renk (2013) were efficient and acceptable due to the explicit purpose of this study. However, it is important to note that the procedures did limit the generalizability of the findings, as it the sample did not include other possible populations and also may not have a true representation of populations in community settings.
8. Describe the data-collection procedure. This would start after participants gave informed consent, and end when the participants have completed the study. Avoid quoting the article, and use your own descriptions. If your methodology was qualitative, you might be describing interview procedures, for example. If your methodology was quantitative, make sure you describe any group assignment methods or any repeated measures (such as a pretest or post test). Evaluate whether the data-collection procedure was appropriate for the methodology and approach.
Asberg and Renk (2013) sought out to identify “the best” predictors for female incarceration for survivors of childhood sexual abuse (p. 169). This required a willingness to explore a myriad of independent variables that could be associated with two potential outcomes, incarceration or college, experienced by female survivors of childhood sexual abuse. To gather data participants provided self-reports through the completion of questionnaires that identified data in areas of demographics, childhood sexual experiences, depression, trauma symptoms, revictimization, substance abuse, criminal justice involvement, ways of coping with childhood sexual abuse, current escape-avoidant coping, substance motives/avoidance coping, social support, family environment, and social reactions to disclosure of childhood sexual abuse (p. 169-170).
This data-collection procedure was effective at gathering information from the perspective of the identified victim and the questionnaires utilized were valid and reliable for assessing the identified independent variables. It may have been helpful, within the data collection process, had the researchers not relied solely on self-reports from participants. For example, the researchers could have obtained information on criminal justice involvement of participants from other sources (criminal background checks, courts, etc.) and reviewed the police and Child Protective Services records for detailed information about the reported childhood sexual abuse, identified supports, and reactions to the disclosure of childhood sexual abuse.
9. Describe the data-analysis procedure. You need only describe the procedure or the statistical tests (if your methodology was quantitative). Avoid quoting the article and use your own descriptions. Evaluate whether the data-analysis procedure was appropriate for the methodology and approach.
Once the data was gathered, Asberg and Renk (2013), utilized SSPS to compare the data sets of the two specific samples (incarcerated females and college females). They utilized chi-square analyses, t-tests, and logistic regression analyses to help interpret the outcomes they observed amongst their data. These statistical procedures were appropriate for identifying the quantitative trends and outcomes of the independent variables and for providing clear comparisons between the two dependent variables.
10. Describe the findings and the conclusions the researchers made. Evaluate whether the conclusions allowed the researchers to answer the research questions and address the research problem.
The findings of the present study identified support that there are many factors which may contribute to outcomes experienced later in life by childhood sexual abuse survivors; these range from less desirable outcomes such as incarceration to more pro-social, resilient outcomes like attending college. Asberg and Renk (2013) were able to effectively address the research problem and answer their research question, which was to identify the best predictors of incarceration for female sexual assault survivors. Based on their findings, Asberg and Renk (2013) clearly concluded that “the present study also indicated that CSA severity, problematic substance use and level of perceived social support were the most important predictors for the risk of incarceration” (p. 173).
11. Include an APA-style references list here.
References
Banyard, V. L., & Williams, L. M. (2007). Women’s voice on recovery: A mutli-method study of the complexity of recovery from child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31,
275-29. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.02.016
Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 22, 301-222. doi: 10.1016/S0160-2527(99)00011-4
Asberg, K., & Renk, K. (2013). Comparing incarcerated and college student women with histories of childhood sexual abuse: The roles of abuse severity, support, and substance use. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, And Policy, 5(2), 167-175. doi:10.1037/a0027162 Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design. New Jersey:
Pearson Education.
Murray, J., Janson, C., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Crime in adult offspring of prisoners: A cross-national comparison of two longitudinal samples. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
34, 133-149. doi: 10.117/0093854896289549
Young, M.S., Harford, K., Kinder, B., & Savell, J. K., (2007). The relationship between childhood sexual abuse and adult mental health among undergraduates. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1315-1331. doi: 10.1177/0886260507304552