Please review and provide help with a summary and analysis of attached article. Any help will be appreciated. Thank you.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 12:11 am ad1c9bdddf
Have you read this somewhat complicated article, yet? If not, perhaps that is the best place to start.
Now, let's take a closer look.
The purpose of this quantitative study, "What happens If We Compare Chopsticks With Forks? The Impact of Making Inappropriate Comparisons in Cross-Cultural Research" (Chen, 2008) was to examine the direction and degree of bias resulting from various forms of non-variance in cross-cultural research. The author reports three major goals in the present investigation:
(a) To examine bias in regression slopes (beta weights) when factor loadings are not invariant, as factor loading invariance is a prerequisite for regression slope comparisons (e.g., When using self-esteem to predict subjective well-being, how would the predictive relationship be affected if the factor loadings of self-esteem were different across groups?);
(b) To explore bias in means when factor loadings are not invariant, because factor loading invariance is also a prerequisite for proper mean comparisons (e.g., How would group means be biased when factor loadings of self-esteem differ?);
(c) To investigate bias in means when intercepts (i.e., point of origin) are not invariant, as intercept invariance is a prerequisite for mean comparisons, in addition to factor loading invariance (Widaman & Reise, 1997; e.g., When one group has higher intercepts in self-esteem than the other group, in what direction would the means be biased in each group?) Given the computational complexity and intensity, the Mplus software program (Muthén & Muthén, 1998) was used to conduct the simulation
Chen (2008) investigated these three goals through three different studies. Findings from Study 1 indicate that lack of factor loading invariance can produce artificial interaction effects in predictive relationships. For example, self-esteem may be found to be a stronger predictor of life-satisfaction for Caucasians than for Chinese, when in fact the relationship is the same for both groups. Therefore, the construct validity of the scales is still in question, as they may measure different concepts in different cultures. Results of Studies 2 and 3 ...
This solution reviews and provides summary help and ideas to facilitate an analysis of the attached article.
Critical analysis of a peer reviewed article in the field of gifted education. Includes overview and analysis of the purpose, methods, procedures, results, limitations, and rigor of the study.
Locate one primary source research article that deals with behavior or psychology in general. The article should not be more than four years old.
After your research, answer the following questions:
What was the purpose of the research? (Hint: In a typical research paper, this will be located in the introduction.)
What were the methods used to conduct the research? (Hint: The methods section contains details about the participants in the research, the measurement tools or apparatus used in conducting the research, and the methods on how data would be collected.) Explain how the research was conducted.
What were the results of the research? (Hint: The results usually depict only the data of the research, not its interpretation. Often, the results are described in terms of the research questions [hypothesis].)
What were the conclusions of the research? (Hint: This is where the researchers conclude and discuss the results and how it supported or didn't support the research questions.)
In your conclusions, if you were to grade the research article, what grade (A through F, with A being the highest grade) would you give the researcher? Explain, based on what you have learned so far, your reasons for giving the grade.