Why choose us?

We understand the dilemma that you are currently in of whether or not to place your trust on us. Allow us to show you how we can offer you the best and cheap essay writing service and essay review service.

Comments and constructive criticism

comments and constructive criticism

The writer will have to read each of this post and react to them by
commenting, analyzing and supporting with relevant articles. The writer will
have to read carefully before giving constructive comments on the post. The
writer should write a one paragraph of at least 150 words. APA and in text
citation must be use as each respond to the two post must have in text
citations. The writer will have to use an article to supports his comments in
each of the article. Address the content of each post below in a one paragraph
each, analysis and evaluation of the topic, as well as the integration of relevant

Article 1
Briefly describe the types of validity presented. What are the critical differences among
them? Assess the authors’ performance in explaining them.

The main reason for validation in research is to give the readers and researchers a measure of
assuredness and confidence that the methods and approaches are sound and useful (Lucko and
Rojas, 2009). Straub, Boudreau, and Gefen (2004) discuss the major types of validity as,
“content validity, construct validity, reliability, manipulation validity, and statistical conclusion
validity” (p. 382). While Straub et al. (2004) acknowledge these are not the only concepts of
validity; the authors are seeking to stimulate interest in using these measures for validity.
Content validity is a validity check to ensure the data collection instruments have a holistic
approach to measuring the construct accurately (Straub et al., 2004). Construct validity seeks to
determine is the instrument chosen and construct alignment (Straub et al., 2004). Reliability
measures the consistency of measurement amongst the variables (Straub et al., 2004).
Manipulation validity is a measure of perceptions of the subjects in the study (Straub et al.,

2004). Statistical conclusion validity focuses on the statistics used in the experiments (Straub et
al., 2004). Straub et al. (2004) provide a working knowledge of the validities while using
language the novice research can understand. The different validities focus on different aspects
of the Doctoral Study, yet maintain alignments within the validation concepts (Straub et al.,

Select a previous article from this course that presents a quantitative study. How would
you assess the study’s validity? What information would you need in order to be able to do
so, and is that information present in the article?

To assess the validity of the Ongori and Agolla (2008) study a researcher would need to focus on
content validity, construct validity, reliability, manipulation validity, and statistical conclusion
validity. Throughout the Ongori and Agolla (2008), study the authors reflect on the choices made
to maintain the validity of the study. Some of the things done to enhance the validity were the
pilot study, peer review, and statistical experiments (Ongori&Agolla, 2008). Through content
validity, the researcher would assess the instrument to determine if there were biases present
(Straub et al., 2004). The researcher would also assess whether there was a holistic approach to
the instrument (Straub et al., 2004). To ensure reliability, the researcher would evaluate the
consistency between the wording and view of the instrument (Straub et al., 2004). Ongori and
Agolla (2008) study assessed manipulation validity through the work done with the pilot study.
The pilot study incorporated the participant’s views and perceptions to eradicate biases in the
questionnaire (Ongori&Agolla, 2008). Although a researcher will need to assess the content
validity, construct validity, reliability, manipulation validity, and statistical conclusion validity

the Ongori and Agolla (2008) does not provide all of the information necessary to make the
evaluation. The researcher will need to review the research question, hypothesis, instrument, and
raw data collected to help assess the studies validity. A researcher would question the validity of
the study from Ongori and Agolla (2008) because, after receipts of the survey results, the authors
decided to combine some of the responses without a full explanation why. Ongori and Agolla
(2008) also bring in validity concerns with the application of meaning into the assessment of the

Based on Table 8 on page 415 in the article by Straub, Boudreau, &Gefen, which positivist
design contingency best describes the previous article for this course? Which best describes
your potential Doctoral Study? Explain your selections.

The Straub et al. (2004) positivist design contingency that best fits with the Ongori and Agolla
(2008) study is the “confirmatory research in well-established research streams” (Straub et al.,
2004, p. 415). Determining the design contingency that best fits the researchers Doctoral Study is
difficult. The researcher feels portions of several of the design contingencies fit with the
proposed Doctoral Study, but largely the design contingency of “Theoretical Work” (Straub et
al., 2004, p. 415). The researcher’s Doctoral study focuses on software requirement stability role
in project success. While is current research available about requirement stability and project
success, however, they have not been researched in the limited context the researcher is
proposing. There are published theories concerning requirements stability and project success,
but the researcher would refine those theories and then test them. The researcher is primarily
looking for the relationships between requirements stability and project success.    


Lucko, G., & Rojas, E. M. (2009). Research validation: Challenges and opportunities in the
construction domain. Journal of construction engineering and management, 136(1), 127-135.

Ongori, H., &Agolla, J. E. (2008). Occupational stress in organizations and its effects on
organizational performance. Journal of Management Research, 8(3), 123–135.

Straub, D., Boudreau, M. C., &Gefen, D. (2004). Validation guidelines for IS positivist research.
The Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13(1), 380-427.

Include the one paragraph comments hear using ana pear review article to support your
comments. Also include in text citations in APA.

Indeed, it is very important for researchers to understand various types of validity to boost the
confidence of the researcher uses. The article has provided a precise discussion of various kinds
of validities. Some of them are content validity, reliability, manipulation validity, construct
validity, and statistical conclusion. These are the most important types of validity that
researchers must ensure when carrying out their research. For instance, using manipulation

validity will help understand the perception of subjects in the study and assess for any biasness in
the study. Ways of assessing validity of a study have also been discussed in a precise manner.
This has demonstrated in depth understanding on the various kinds of validity. Using peer
review, pilot studies, or statistical experiments are essential ways to identify or assess validity in
quantitative studies. This has been well illustrated and it makes it easy to understand. The article
has as well tackled the issue of positivist design contingency well an indication of understanding
in the areas. The article in general is credible and precise, as the author has based argument on

Article 2

Validity of any type of research falls under quality of a given study. There are different types of
concerns in each type of methodology. For example, inn qualitative research, concern about
assessing quality has manifested itself recently in the proliferation of guidelines for doing and
judging qualitative work. Guidelines are developed by expert users and researchers and they
usually set a standard parameter for distinguishing between a good vs. bad research. The issue of
quality in qualitative research is part of a much larger and contested debate about the nature of
the knowledge produced by qualitative research, whether its quality can legitimately be judged,
and, if so, how. Even in a quantitative study, it is critical to assess the validity of research.

The article in question elaborates on four different types of validity; instrument, internal, external
and statistical conclusion (Straub, Boudreau, &Gefen, 2004). It is important to analyze the

validity of the doctoral study, since I am conducting a research within the healthcare sector; I
reviewed an article that assessed quality in terms of validity. In healthcare, it is very important to
study the patient behavior in terms of being complaint with their medical recommendations. The
literature on patient adherence to treatment includes hundreds of empirical studies. A
comprehensive examination of the findings requires the organization and quantification that is
possible with meta-analysis (DiMatteo& Robin, 2004). The method used for this research was
calculation of a meta-analysis of 569 studies reporting adherence to medical treatment prescribed
by a non-psychiatrist physician, and 164 studies providing correlations between adherence and
patients’ age, gender, education, and income/socioeconomic status; group comparison and
multiple regression analysis of moderator (DiMatteo& Robin, 2004). The results showed
significant insights into the literature on patient adherence, providing direction for future
research. It was concluded that focus on reliability and validity of adherence measurement and
systematic study of substantive and methodological moderators are recommended for future
research on patient adherence (DiMatteo& Robin, 2004).


DiMatteo, Robin. (2004). Variations in patient’s adherence to medical recommendations: A
quantatitive review of 50 years of research. Retrieved on November 25 2015 from

Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C., &Gefen, D. (2004). Validation guidelines for IS positivist research.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 380-427. R

Include the one paragraph comments hear using an a pear review article to support your
comments. Also include in text citations in APA.

This article has provided insights on the aspect of validity. The article is precise but with wealth
of ideas. Various types of validity are applicable in different types of research methodology and
therefore, it is very important that any researcher put this into consideration. Assessment of
validity of research has to be done in both qualitative researches as well as in quantitative
research. Actually, experts and researchers have the audacity to provide the guide on this as this
will strike a balance. I do appreciate the balanced view on the researchers when it comes to
assessing validity in qualitative studies as it illustrates that indeed there are inherent challenges
and differences in opinion on the use of thee validity types. This has made the article objective
and professional. The article has mentioned some types of validity as internal, instrument,
external and statistical conclusion. These are important in any doctoral study to ensure that the
researcher remain objective when carrying out the study. For instance, doctoral research in the
field of health care would require the researcher to check and verify the findings of various
empirical studies to ascertain whether they are reliable and valid. Use of meta-analysis
techniques can actually be helpful in this as the article clearly explains. I conquer with the ideas
enlisted in the article. The article is as well written and is objective, hence reliable.

All Rights Reserved, scholarpapers.com
Disclaimer: You will use the product (paper) for legal purposes only and you are not authorized to plagiarize. In addition, neither our website nor any of its affiliates and/or partners shall be liable for any unethical, inappropriate, illegal, or otherwise wrongful use of the Products and/or other written material received from the Website. This includes plagiarism, lawsuits, poor grading, expulsion, academic probation, loss of scholarships / awards / grants/ prizes / titles / positions, failure, suspension, or any other disciplinary or legal actions. Purchasers of Products from the Website are solely responsible for any and all disciplinary actions arising from the improper, unethical, and/or illegal use of such Products.