Article Critique: Part 2: A Qualitative Analysis

1171 Words5 Pages
Lin Article Critique: Part 2 Dustin T. Rheel Liberty University Counseling 503, D22 Professor Carlene Taylor November 25, 2012 Critique of Population and Sampling In the Lin, Mack, Enright, Krahn, and Baskin article (2004) article, they sampled forty-three participants from various drug rehabilitation centers. These participants were suffering from alcohol and other drug dependences. Some of the participants were referred by the therapist and then the suggested participants then had the option to participate or not, thus making the sample used not random. Even though the sample was not random, they were randomly selected to be in one of 2 groups, Forgiveness Therapy (FT) or Alcohol and Drug Counseling (ADC) (Lin et al., 2004).…show more content…
The 43 participants that were selected for this study were chosen from a residential drug rehabilitation center that required the participants to meet certain criteria for the study. Once the participants were selected they were then divided into one of two treatment groups, FT or ADC, randomly (2004). Once the treatment groups were selected then the participants were provided with sufficient detail of the study. The researches explained throughout the article the premise of FT and how it could potentially affect rehabilitation of individuals. In addition, the study did provide and explanation of ADC and how it is the current preferred method of treatment (2004). Lin et al. ensured that the individuals providing treatment were trained in both the FT and ADC; the therapist utilized in this study had been practicing for at least 20 years. To ensure that treatment was being provided correctly the therapists were monitored by videotaping sessions. After the sessions were taped a member of the research team selected, “3 sessions for each of 3 participants in both treatment groups” (Lin et al., 2004). This was to ensure that therapies were being delivered consistently in treatment groups. Since no members of the treatment were conducting sessions, Lin et al. ensure that the providers had been practicing for at least 20 years in the specific treatment…show more content…
However, Lin et al. (2004) did explain in detail the description of the instruments used. Further the researchers did provide validity of each of the assessments utilized in the study. Lin et al., did utilize specialized formatting and detail when using the various assessments. These assessments were provided randomly and a needed response format was utilized (2004). The researchers did place restrictions on the study due to the selected participant pool. The dispositions of the participants were noted of psychiatric history, mobility, response to treatment, potential for relapse, motivation to change, and potential legal issues (2004). Lin et al. utilized multiple methods to collect data from the participants. The following are the tests utilized in this study to obtain relevant information from participants; EFI, BDI-II, CSEL, STAI, SSTAEL, and the Vulnerability to drug scale (2004). Lin et al., did provided adequate information on the assessment tools utilized and their importance to the study (2004). The article also mentioned that the Vulnerability to drug scale was given inside the treatment facility possibly allowing for unreliable data collected for the study. Since the assessments were not given anonymously it is possibly that individuals were influenced with their responses creating a bias in the results of the assessments (Lin et al., 2004). In the examination of the Lin et

More about Article Critique: Part 2: A Qualitative Analysis

Open Document