Article Review and Analysis Paper Available

Article Review and Analysis
Article Review and Analysis
Article Review and Analysis

Article Review and Analysis

Order Instructions:

It is very important that the writer read carefully the instructions here below and understand it well before engaging in responding to any of the 3 points below. Proper APA must be use throughout the entire paper, and the articles to be used for the paper must be properly cited.

Article Review and Analysis

In this course, you have learned methods for statistically manipulating research data and explored the importance of ensuring validity in the methods that are used to collect research data. Consider the various aspects of validity you have explored. How might you prioritize their importance?
With these thoughts in mind:

Review the article “Validation Guidelines for IS Positivist Research,” by Straub, Boudreau, & Gefen and focus your analysis on each of the following guiding questions. You should address each set of questions in a short paragraph. Be sure to refer directly to the article where appropriate.

• Briefly describe the types of validity presented. What are the critical differences among them? Assess the authors’ performance in explaining them.

• Select a previous article that presents a quantitative study. How would you assess the study’s validity? What information would you need in order to be able to do so, and is that information present in the article?

• Based on Table 8 on page 415 in the article by Straub, Boudreau, & Gefen, which positivist design contingency best describes the previous article you selected ? Which best describes your potential Doctoral Study (Effects of HRM Practices on Employee Performance)? Explain your selections.

I will email the reference article in this order form,, and for the other quantitative article, the writer will search for a suitable article of not more that 5 years old to be use in completing the paper,

SAMPLE ANSWER

Introduction

To provide complete and accurate view of research work, a given construct must draw confidence in its representation and ability to validate its own concepts based on its empirical findings (Straub, Boudreau & Gefen, 2004).

Content Validity

The construct would be more helpful and meaningful if the validities chosen reflect the heuristics presented in the study. Assessing content validity is very difficult as researchers are uncertain on how to rate the degree or level of completeness of their own research work. Content validity is basically sampling and evaluating the contents of research work for its validity (Straub, Boudreau & Gefen, 2004).

Construct Validity

Construct validity provides the measurement between constructs or operations. Construct validity appeals more to the content of the construct’s validity than the substance of the construct. It raises the fundamental question as to whether the construct fits in its application by the researcher in an attempt to capture the significance of the construct. The application of nomological network is applied to test if there are links similar to the ones existing on the construct literature. Construct validity focuses more on the likeness or differences of the construct linkages and their strengths on past literature (Straub, Boudreau & Gefen, 2004).

Predictive Validity

It is also known as concurrent validity and it establishes relationship between different measures and constructs through demonstration of posited measures directed on specific construct correlations. Predictive validity predicts outcomes for given variables but they also provide conceptual meaning applies to the constructs antecedents and ramifications. The goal of predictive validity is basically prediction while also reinforcing the concept of the theory base (Szajna, 1994).

The author has explained the differences as well as the similarities of the various validity measures. For example, the author has explained that predictive validity validates both the exogenous as well as the endogenous constructs based on the use of z-scores (Szajna, 1994).

The peer review research article by Klein and Olbrecht (2011) demonstrates the need to widen and work on more exploratory research work. The article summarizes the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data analysis. The oral presentation and the other protocols provided as the basis of the research work requires more cognitive frameworks to present constructive and validated data. The intractable domains are also difficult to establish as the research relies on limited primary data. To assess the validity of the primary data I would require the questionnaires that were used to compile the research report (Straub, Boudreau & Gefen, 2004).

The non-theoretical work which bases its findings on the primary descriptive data would provide a basis for predictive validity. The predictive validity predicts outcomes for given variables but its conceptual meaning applies to the constructs antecedents and ramifications which are collaborated with the content validity. The research work can only be validated by confirming the constructs relationship with other research work from well established research streams. The article confirms that the validity of scientific that is based on positivist science needs based not only on highly biased observations but also on a series of random anecdotes that tests the intellectual constructs of the research presented. The article requires the rigor of intelligent, careful and thoughtful collection of primary data (Carrier et al, 1990).

The best description of my potential doctoral study is the exploratory that specifically probe the areas in HRM that are not well understood like valuation of human resources as a key element of a company’s capital structure.
References

Carrier, M. R., A. T. Dalessio, and S. H. Brown (1990). “Correspondence between Estimates of Content and Criterion-Related Validity Values,” Personnel Psychology (43) 1 (spring), pp. 85-100.

Klein, T. and Olbrecht, M. (2011) Triangulation of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Panel Peer Review Research, International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education (IJCDSE), Volume 2, Issue 2, June, pg 345 -348.

Szajna, B. (1994) “Software Evaluation and Choice: Predictive Validation of the Technology Acceptance Instrument,” MIS Quarterly (17) 3, pp. 319-324.

Straub, D.,  & Boudreau, M., & Gefen, D. (2004) Validation Guidelines for Positivist Research, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol 13, pg 380 – 427.

We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!

 

Unlike most other websites we deliver what we promise;

  • Our Support Staff are online 24/7
  • Our Writers are available 24/7
  • Most Urgent order is delivered with 6 Hrs
  • 100% Original Assignment Plagiarism report can be sent to you upon request.

GET 15 % DISCOUNT TODAY use the discount code PAPER15 at the order form.

Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page:
 Total: