Critique of MANOVA Selection and Results Presentation in Research

QUESTION

critique of the research you found in the Walden Library that includes responses to the following prompts:

• Why did the authors select MANOVA in the research?
• Do you think this test was the most appropriate choice? Why or why not?
• Did the authors display the results in a figure or table?
• Does the results table stand alone? In other words, are you able to interpret the study from it? Why or why not?

SUBMISSION INFORMATION

The objective of this quantitative research study was to identify and examine psychological effects on adults who stutter who were cyberbullied as an adolescent, specifically looking at depression, anxiety, and stress levels. Using survey methodology, a two-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was utilized to determine if young adults who stutter and were cyberbullied in middle and/or high school express current depression, anxiety, or stress levels as compared to three other groups (no cyberbullying and no stuttering; cyberbullying and no stuttering; and no cyberbullying and stuttering). This study used the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS) instrument in an online survey format to determine which, if any, lasting psychological stressors were found. Results indicate that the cyberbullied and stuttering group have significantly higher anxiety levels compared to the three additional groups, significantly higher depression levels compared to the group with no cyberbullying and no stuttering, and significantly higher stress levels compared to the groups with stuttering and no cyberbullying and no cyberbullying and no stuttering. This research indicates the effects that cyberbullying can have on mental health, and additionally the negative effect that stuttering can have on a person’s overall mental health as well.

References

Nicolai, S., Geffner, R., Stolberg, R., & Yaruss, J. S. (2018). Retrospective Experiences of Cyberbullying and Emotional Outcomes on Young Adults Who Stutter. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 11(1), 27-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-018-0208-x

ANSWER

Critique of MANOVA Selection and Results Presentation in Research

Introduction

In this critique, we will analyze a research study obtained from the Walden Library, focusing on the authors’ choice of the Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) test and the presentation of the results. We will evaluate whether MANOVA was the most appropriate statistical test, the adequacy of results display, and its interpretability.

Selection of MANOVA in the Research

The authors’ selection of MANOVA in the research can be attributed to its suitability for analyzing multiple dependent variables simultaneously. MANOVA is a multivariate extension of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test, designed to handle situations where there are two or more continuous dependent variables, and the researcher wants to examine the effect of one or more independent variables on them collectively. It allows for the examination of the relationships between multiple dependent variables, making it suitable for studying complex interactions.

Appropriateness of MANOVA as the Test Choice

The choice of MANOVA appears to be appropriate in the context of the study’s objectives. Since the research aimed to investigate the impact of multiple independent variables on several dependent variables simultaneously, MANOVA provides a comprehensive analysis, reducing the likelihood of inflated Type I error rates that might occur when running separate univariate tests for each dependent variable. By using MANOVA, the authors can explore relationships between variables while accounting for their intercorrelations, increasing the statistical power and efficiency of the analysis.

Display of Results in Figures or Tables

The authors presented the results in a tabular format. A well-organized table can be an effective way to summarize complex data, and in the case of MANOVA, it facilitates the clear representation of results involving multiple dependent variables and their respective interactions with the independent variables. Additionally, using a table allows for precise data presentation and easy comparison between groups and conditions.

 Interpretability of the Results Table

The results table alone might not be sufficient for a complete interpretation of the study. While the table may provide statistical information such as p-values, F-values, degrees of freedom, and effect sizes, it lacks the narrative context necessary to comprehend the study’s findings fully. In-depth interpretation typically requires accompanying text that explains the research objectives, the variables studied, the hypotheses tested, and the implications of the statistical outcomes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the authors’ selection of MANOVA for their research was justified as it allowed them to examine the relationships between multiple dependent variables and independent variables simultaneously. The use of a results table to present the findings was suitable for organizing and summarizing the complex data generated by MANOVA. However, while the table provides statistical information, it cannot stand alone in conveying the full scope and significance of the study. To interpret the research comprehensively, additional narrative context and analysis should accompany the results table. By considering the appropriateness of statistical tests and ensuring clear and comprehensive presentation of results, researchers can enhance the validity and impact of their studies.