Evaluating a Research Instrument in a Quantitative Research Study

1.  Discuss the types of reliability and validity that are reported or not reported by the authors in the article, your interpretation of the values that are reported, and any types of reliability and validity that are notably absent. 2.  Critique the quality of the questionnaire/instrument according to the reported reliability and validity (refer to specific critiquing items, 3 through 8, in Box 16.1, page 359, Chapter 16 of the Polit and Beck textbook, 11th ed).3.  Using this same questionnaire/instrument, discuss the statistical analysis of the data reported on the outcomes (i.e. what were the results). 4.  Critique the quality of the data analysis for this instrument (refer to specific critiquing items, 3 through 10, in Box 18.1, page 408, Chapter 18 of the Polit and Beck textbook, 11th ed).5.  Summarize the strengths and limitations of the instrument/questionnaire used in the research study and the data analysis procedures used.We will need to make a minimum of three responses to this order.here is the first one:AAThe article I selected determines the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and overall psychological distress in terminally ill patients using standardized measures who are seeking a prescription for medical aid in dying from a physician (Ganzini et al., 2008). According to Ganzini et al. (2008), 58 terminally ill Oregon residents who had either requested medical aid in dying from a physician or contacted an aid in dying organization were selected. The SCID (Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV) diagnostic interview tool, the hospital anxiety and depression scale as well as 20 item Beck hopelessness scale produced a numerical value on a scale from 0 (psychological distress) to 21 (severe psychological distress) (Ganzini et al, 2008).  These numbers were then compared to the number of patients who continued to pursue and received the lethal prescription versus those who did not.  The overall purpose was to determine the number of participants who are psychologically distressed that received an aid in dying prescription.  This quantitative research study poses a threat to internal validity due to the lack of information on the clinical participants prior to their terminal diagnosis.  The numerical scale values that are evaluating psychological distress are most likely to have been much different prior to diagnosis than to a participant finding out they are in the last few months of their lives. In following the guidelines to review the studies’ validity and reliability, one could assume from the proposed research that this study is both reliable and valid.  According to Polit and Beck (2021), reviewing various types of validity and focusing on how they are used to determine the accuracy and consistency of the study are directly related to the overall quality. The report describes content validation efforts by specifically stating the effectiveness of the standardized measures used to screen for anxiety and depression. These screening measures are used in hospitals across the nation. Though the description was vague, the report did mention these validation efforts.  Efforts were made to refine the scale through cognitive questioning as seen by the extensive item analysis tables presented in the report itself. These tables displayed that of those that participated in the study who obtained the prescription for a lethal drug, one in six had psychological distress (Ganzini et al. 2008). The study did indicate the mean age of the 58 participants as well as the number of those male/female, married/single and the number enrolled in hospice at the time of the study.  All participants had either some form of cancer or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis indicating both size and representativeness. The study could have included the credentials of the psychiatrists conducting the assessments. This could increase the validity of the instruments used as well as the validity of the overall results. Furthermore, the study did not indicate whether the same psychiatrist was used for all assessments for each participant. Consistency in the assessing provider would have provided more internal consistency leading to overall increased reliability.  According to Riege (2003), there is no single set of validity or reliability tests when analyzing research, rather various criterion and methods should be taken into consideration.According to Ganzini et al. (2008), the results showed that of the 42 participants who died by the end of the study, 18 received the lethal drug and nine died by lethal ingestion.  Among those that passed, no significant differences were seen amongst those who received the lethal drug and those who did on evaluation of psychological distress. Though it was clear that those who received the lethal drug had a lower average (4.0) of psychological distress assessment scores than those who did not (5.1). Lower scores are the average of the numerical standardized assessments which indicate lower psychological distress.  The selected statistical tests were appropriate as they directly related to the outcomes desired though no direct hypothesis was mentioned.  Parametric tests were not directly used in this study though one could assume that based on the population parameters, it is highly likely that psychological distress is prevalent amongst most participants. The report provided a rationale for the statistical tests by mentioning their use in various settings outside the study itself.  An appropriate amount of statistical data was reported though the findings were not exactly clear or logically organized.  The tables were difficult to read and understand and were unorganized/scattered. This made identifying the study results difficult to comprehend.  The table could be more useful if each participants assessment results were displayed followed by a column identifying those that took the lethal drug and those that did not.  An overall average could be listed at the bottom of the table with a sum from all the assessments. Because the participant sample was so small, the effects could not be deemed sizable or significant.  A factor that could contribute to the statistical validity of this report could be increasing the number of participants and broadening the diagnoses from just two, to multiple.According to Ganzini et al. (2008), the strengths of this study include a blinding system that involved psychiatrists who were not aware the patient had requested aid in dying as this could have influenced diagnostic thresholds. A limitation could be seen in this study as only cancer and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients participated. This eliminates other terminal diseases that could potentially have higher rates of overall comfort throughout the disease process.  The result values indicated that patients who obtained the lethal medication had an overall lower numerical average score than those who did not.  ReferencesGanzini, L., Goy, E. R.,