When Should You Use Qualitative Methods When Conducting Counseling Research?

This is four comments on four students post. there are 2 for 4-1 and 2 for 4-2 the students are Rachel and Theresa for 4-1 and for 4-2 the students are Rachel and Rubio the questions are different must have in text citation and a reference page comments must be schollary
I need in four days. I think there is a chapter in the book for this. I have added chapters 9-12 pay no attention to the first part of the file I could not take it off only pay attention to chapters 9-12 and take what you need to answer the students post.
one page is enought, it is only comments on my classmates post divide the 274 words into 4 and it should ok for a good comment

4-1 When should you use qualitative methods when conducting counseling research? Provide at least two examples in your response as well as rationale.Rachel Berrios and Lucca (2006) make an interesting assertion about the relationship of qualitative researchers and counselors in that the way their view human nature is the very similar. In many ways, it seems that practicing counselors are much more at home with qualitative research. Qualitative research bears an emphasis on quality, not quantity (Sheperis, Young, and Daniels, 2017). This method is most appropriate when you want to know “how or what about a particular phenomenon” (p. 270), and especially when the context of what is being studied is a little fuzzy (Sheperis et al., 2017). Qualitative research is presented in narrative form, rather than numbers, which also seems to be familiar and comfortable for counselors (Sheperis et al., 2017; Berrios & Lucca, 2006). In fact, many of the skills needed to conduct qualitative research are the same as in conducting therapy, reports Berrios and Lucca (2006), including “how the clients present themselves, what their feelings are, their tone of voice, underlying issues, hidden agendas, and what is the nature of the counselor–client interaction” (p. 175). Qualitative research allows participants to share their experiences in their own words, and with someone who can empathetically respond to those experiences. One of the predominant features of qualitative research is that researchers are able to study a phenomenon in its naturally occurring environment; it also gives researchers the opportunity to describe something with richness and depth (Berrios & Lucca, 2006). If I were to study the role of the father in the childhood of a woman who reports a history of domestic violence, I would really be investigating the woman’s emotions, values, and perceptions underlying her current relationship. I would choose a qualitative research design for this topic because it addresses questions of how and why women become involved with men who abuse; it is something that cannot really be studies with numbers. Going back to a few weeks ago, in which we described a research topic of interest, I said I wanted to study adoption disruptions. A qualitative approach to this topic would be to study the characteristics associated with families who made the decision to disrupt an adoption before finalization. “Why” did a disruption occur? is the central question I would want answered, which is the reason why a qualitative research design would be best.ReferencesBerrios, R., & Lucca, N. (2006). Qualitative methodology in counseling research: Recent contributions and challenges for a new century. Journal of Counseling and Development, 84(2), 174-186. Retrieved from https://lopes(dot)idm(dot)oclc(dot)org/login?url=http://search(dot)ebscohost(dot)com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edswss&AN=000236658100006&site=eds-live&scope=siteSheperis, C., Young, J., & Daniels, M. H. (2017). Counseling research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PearsonTheresa, qualitative methods are used when a researcher is not looking for numerical information, but is looking to understand human behavior. Qualitative methods would be appropriate for example if a researcher was interested in attachment, and observed mothers and fathers with their infants and toddlers. This method would also be appropriate if a researcher was interested in emotional responses to particular triggers. Qualitative data is collected through direct observations, open ended questionnaires, unstructured interviews, and case studies (McLeod, 2008). Due to the methods used to collect qualitative data, it is typically harder to analyze, so researchers must be very specific in how they go about categorizing information.Direct observation methods are great at limiting bias, as the observer as unobtrusive as possible, observers use a detached perspective, again to limit bias and taking part in the experience (Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2006) . There are a few ways direct observation can take place, through videotaping, one way mirrors, or direct observation by the researcher.Unstructured interviewing involves a direct interaction between the researcher and participant. This typically requires the researcher to have some general questions, but the freedom to move the direction of conversation or questioning in any direction (Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2006). This is a great method for exploring broad topics; however the lack of structure makes analyzing data difficult.Open ended questionnaires are great for allowing the participant to express themselves in their own words. This allows for participants to give detailed answers that describe exactly how they are feeling, or how they perceive something, experience something, etc. This method is fairly time consuming, and again makes analyzing data more difficult.Case studies re another qualitative method used in research. Case studies allow researchers to investigate a topic much more in depth; it is like an investigation for a single person, group, or community. Case studies typically utilize both unstructured interviewing and direct observations, but can also use journal entries, letters, personal notes, or official documents. These have been used a lot in the past with theorists like Freud and Piaget.Research Methods Knowledge Base. (2006). Qualitative Methods. Retrieved from: http://www(dot)socialresearchmethods(dot)net/kb/qualmeth.phpMcLeod, S. (2008). Qualitative vs. Quantitative. Simply Psychology. Retrieved from: http://www(dot)simplypsychology(dot)org/qualitative-quantitative.html4-2 What is the difference between clinical significance and statistical significance? How might these concepts be applied to program evaluation? Give an example of an instance in which you might be torn between two types of significance in the reported results of research. What are some other types of statistical evaluations that help to sort out the true significance of clinical research findings? Provide at least two scholarly references for your discussion and justifications.Rachel We have been learning in this class about the importance of critically evaluating research before deciding that the results are worthy of being generalized to a larger population of people. A challenge for consumers of research is the accurate interpretation of “significance;” it is often thought that if a study yield statistically significant results, those results are clinically important (Ranganathan, Pramesh, & Buyse, 2015). Statistical significance, or P value, is the extent to which the results can be trusted and explained by treatment and not by chance and must be less than 5% (Sainani, 2012; Ranganathan et al., 2015). The larger the population sample size, the easier it is to achieve this rate of 95% certainty, but Sainani (2012) says that statistical significance can be misleading when the sample size is large enough, and that more attention should be paid to the smallest group analyzed. Statistical significance has always been given such weight and reverence in the world of research because it answers a yes/no question in objective terms (Sainani, 2012). Clinical significance is more subjective because it has to do with clinical judgement – whether or not practitioners should care about the rate of confidence (95% or greater) gained through statistical significance (Sainani, 2012; Ranganathan et al., 2015). It is especially important when statistical significance is achieved based on huge sample sizes (Sainani, 2012). Sainani (2012) indicates that we should be additionally critical of research involving tens or hundreds of thousands of participants boasting near 0 P values. Johnson and Kirsch (2008) states that the “FDA considers only statistical significance when licensing antidepressant medications” (p. 57), and says this is misleading without evaluating the clinical significance of adopting the recommendations by research. I think I would be torn by research that yielded clinical significance for a treatment I wanted to use. Reporting effect sizes, rather than significance testing is one way to help sort out the true significance of clinical research findings (Sheperis, Young, and Daniels, 2017). The effect size can be calculated using Cohen’s d (Thirthalli & Rajkumar, 2009). Calculating effect sizes helps clinicians “know about the magnitude of the changes effected by the intervention—how big is the difference caused by the intervention compared to naturally occurring variations” (Thirthalli & Rajkumar, 2009, p. 76). ReferencesJohnson, B. T., & Kirsch, I. (2008). Do antidepressants work? Statistical significance versus clinical benefits. Significance, 5(2), 54-58. doi:10.1111/j.1740-9713.2008.00286.xRanganathan, P., Pramesh, C. S., & Buyse, M. (2015). Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Clinical versus statistical significance. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 6(3), 169-170. doi:10.4103/2229-3485.159943Sainani, K. L. (2012). Statistically speaking: Clinical versus statistical significance. Pm&R, (4)1, 442-445. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.04.014Sheperis, C., Young, J., & Daniels, M. H. (2017). Counseling research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PearsonThirthalli, J., & Rajkumar, R. P. (2009). Statistical versus clinical significance in psychiatric research—An overview for beginners. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 2(2), 74-79. doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2009.04.004.RubioClinical significance measures how large the differences are in research rather than differences being real as opposed to chance as measured in statistical difference (Leung, 2001). It is important that research is critically evaluated to determine if a study is clinically applicable (Page, 2014). “Statistically significant differences or outcomes simply address whether to accept or reject a null or directional hypothesis, without providing information on the magnitude or direction of the difference (treatment effect)” (Page, 2014).Statistics are utilized to answer questions of probability (Page, 2014). “While most research focus on statistical significance, clinicians and clinical researchers should focus on clinically significant changes” (Page, 2014). If torn between two types of significance in the reported results in research, then focusing on size of significance can help determine between two types of significance. “To decide whether a new treatment should be used, statistical significance of its effectiveness over current treatment alone is insufficient” (Leung, 2001). Therefore, size other than probability alone should be applied.Effectiveness also assists in determining true significance. One of the most important indicators of clinical significance is the effect size (Page, 2014). In regards to effect size, “It reflects the magnitude of the difference in outcomes between groups; a greater effect size indicates a larger difference between experimental and control groups” (Page, 2014).Khan Academy. (2016). Confidence intervals (one sample. Retrieved from: https://www(dot)khanacademy(dot)org/math/statistics-probability/confidence-intervals-one-sampleLeung, W-C. (2001). Balancing statistical and clinical significance in evaluating treatment effects. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 77(905). Retrieved from: http://pmj(dot)bmj(dot)com/content/77/905/201Page, P. (2014). Beyond statistical significance: A clinical interpretation of rehabilitation research literature. Int J Sports Phys Ther, 9(5). 726-736. Retrieved from: https://www(dot)ncbi(dot)nlm(dot)nih(dot)gov/pmc/articles/PMC4197528/