LIN ARTICLE: PART TWO Running head: LIN ARTICLE: PART TWO

Lin Article Critique: Part Two Kyla Whitehead 6/13/2013 Liberty University

LIN ARTICLE: PART TWO Critique of Population & Sampling The population and sampling size used in research is very important. When you use a proper population and sample, you avoid making mistakes in research such as confounds and generalizations based on a particular sample instead of focusing on a larger population. In the

case of Lins article one question we must ask is was random sampling used? The answer to this question would be yes. Lin, Mack, Enright, Krahn, & Baskin (2004) randomly assigned fourteen participants whom were recruited from a drug rehabilitation center to FT or ADC to routine residential treatment. Therefore, random sampling was used in the research so they could make appropriate generalizations. Another good question that must be asked when observing the population and sampling size would be, if random sampling was used, was it stratified? The answer to this question would also be yes because the sampling used was not only random, but stratified as well. According to Lin et. al. (2004), the fourteen participants were randomly assigned and completed either 12 approximately twice-weekly sessions of individual FT or 12 approximately twiceweekly sessions of an alternative individual treatment based on routine drug and alcohol therapy topics. In the case of this study, the groups were based on the treatments given, which included Forgiveness Therapy and an alternative individual treatment. Therefore, seven people did Forgiveness Therapy and the other half received the alternative treatment, hence making the random sample stratified. Another question we must ask about the research is has the author described relevant demographics of the sample? In Lins study the participants demographics seemed to be highest education attained, race, religion, and the participants most significant injurer (Lin et.al, 2004, p.1115). These four things were the backgrounds of the participants that were

LIN ARTICLE: PART TWO acknowledged when conducting the study. Therefore, Lin did in fact describe demographics in the study. Another question would be is the number of participants in each subgroup sufficiently large? The answer to this question would be no. Lin used a total of fourteen participants in his study, with only seven being in each subgroup. The sample size was too small to make any generalizations. Is the overall size of the sample adequate? According to Lins study the answer to this question would also be no. Due to the small number of participants generalizations cannot be made. Lin would have to use larger numbers in his sample in order to make good

generalizations. Fourteen participants are not enough to make appropriate generalizations due to the nature of the study. An important question to ask about the study would be has informed consent been obtained? The answer to this question would be yes. According to Lin et. al (2004), if interested, participants were provided with details regarding the study (p. 1115). Therefore, participants were in fact informed about the nature of the subject. Critique of Procedures The procedures that are used in a study are very important. There are a lot of choices that can be made when choosing what type of procedure to use and a lot of important factors to consider when making this choice. One question that can be asked when considering critiquing procedures is if two or more groups were compared, were the participants assigned at random to the groups? The answer to this question would be yes. The groups were chosen at random. There was random assignment to either FT or ADC ( Lin et.al, 2004, p.1116).

LIN ARTICLE: PART TWO Are the treatments described in sufficient detail? Yes the treatments were described in

sufficient detail. The FT and the ADC were described appropriately. They were both made clear about what they were used for and what they were trying to identify. If the treatments were administered by individuals other than the researcher, were those individuals properly trained? The treatments were given by a single therapist. This therapist had over twenty years of therapeutic experience and had been using the methods for the past five years (Lin et. al, 2004, p.1116). The therapist also received training by Robert Enright in the FT protocol (Lin et. al, 2004). Therefore the answer to this question would be yes the individuals were properly trained. If the treatments were administered by individuals other than the researcher, were they monitored? The answer would be yes. In the study, all therapy sessions were tape recorded to check for treatment fidelity(Lin et. al, 2004, p.1116). Except for differences in the treatments, were all other conditions the same in the experimental and control groups. The answer to this question would be yes. Not only did the same therapist administer both treatments, but they were done the same number of days as well. Both therapy sessions had twelve sessions in all with one session per week for each treatment (Lin et. al, 2004, p.1116). Has the researcher used ethical and politically acceptable treatments? Yes they have . The treatments given were very safe and ethical. The procedures FT and ADC were not harmful to participants and they were very acceptable. Overall, was the experiment properly conducted? Yes the experiment was properly conducted. The procedures used were very acceptable and the groups and administer of the

LIN ARTICLE: PART TWO treatments were proper as well. The groups were randomly assigned while the therapist administering the procedures were monitored and very well trained. Critique of Measurement Even though the sample/population and procedures used in a study are very important, the measures used in the study are equally just as important. A question that can be asked to evaluate measurement would be have the actual items and questions (or at least a sample of them) been provided? The answer to this question would be no. Even though the items are stated and described, there are no sample questions to see exactly what the tests may ask. The tests involved in this study were Beck Depression Inventory II, Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and a modified version of the Adult Substance Use Survey (Lin et.al., 2004, p.1116). Another question to ask would be are any specialized response formats, settings, and/or

restrictions described in detail? The answer to this question would be yes. The questions made it clear about the meaning of the highest scores on the test along with the range of the scores. For example, for the EFI measure the scores ranged from 60-360 with the highest score representing high levels of forgiveness (Lin et.al, 2004, p.1116). When appropriate, were multiple methods used to collect data/information on each variable? The answer to this question would be yes. Multiple methods were used to collect data on different variables. There were different assessments administered for different reasons in Lins study. The EFI was administered for forgiveness, BDI-II was administered for symptoms and attitudes of depression, CSEI was for attitudes towards the self, STAI was for two types of anxiety, SSTAEI was for anger, and Vulnerability to Drug Use Scale was used for attitudes towards drug use (Lin et.al, 2004, p.1116).

LIN ARTICLE: PART TWO For published measures, have sources been cited where additional information can be obtained? The answer is yes. For the measures there were references cited to tell where to get more information about the validity of the assessments.

Do the researchers discuss obvious limitations to their measures? The answer would be yes. Two of these limitations included resentment of participants and experimenter effects. In the case of resentment, it was unclear to whether resentments in a participants past were typical or rare (Lin et.al, 2004, p.1120). In the case of experimenter effects it was unclear what experimenter effects were working being that only one therapist delivered both treatments (Lin et. al, 2004, p.1120). Overall, are the measures adequate? The measures are adequate. There was enough information given about the measures to make them understandable. There were also references to help provide additional information on the measures if needed. Conclusion In conclusion, Lin did a great job on sample/population, measures, and procedures. The information given was clarified with appropriate explanations and citations for additional information if needed. The procedures used were also very acceptable, safe, and conducted in an appropriate manner.

LIN ARTICLE: PART TWO References Lin, W., Enright, R. D., Krahn, D., Mack, D., & Baskin, T. W. (2004). Effects of Forgiveness

Therapy on Anger, Mood, and Vulnerability to Substance Use among Inpatient SubstanceDependent Clients. Journal Of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 72(6), 1114-1121. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.6.1114