Data Analysis in Draucker’s & Mackey’s Studies
Mackey et al. utilized a matrix analysis methodology in order to process and assess the obtained data. However, the specifics of these methods’ operational processes were excluded from the article. In addition, the study mentioned that it became apparent that patients could be grouped but never explained how exactly it was apparent. On the other hand, Mackey et al. managed to get a multidisciplinary team involved during the data collection and assessment stages, which added credibility to their research findings.
As for data analysis of the second study, the interviews were conducted as a part of the parent project. Draucker et al. utilized the appropriate data assessment methodologies in order to develop a typology of violent events occurring during adolescent relationships. Firstly, the researchers ensured that all of the incidents (184 in total) were individually identified, with a sheet constructed for each event. This helped Draucker et al. to assess the events one by one in terms of “the setting, precipitants, proximal antecedents, interactional sequences, the contribution of third parties, effects of substance use, the use of weapons, law enforcement involvement, and injuries or other outcomes of the events.”
Then, based on these individual ‘files’ for each event, researchers looked for repeating patterns using the cross-case analysis methodology. It allowed them to create numerous categories without clusters and distinctions. The study also enhanced the trustworthiness of its data analysis techniques by maintaining an extensive audit trail, assembling a multidisciplinary team, as well as facilitating group negotiations.
Only one of the studies discussed the limitations of their research efforts. Draucker et al. identified a number of limitations that affected the study. They included the lack of diversity in the sample population in terms of gender (more women than men) and sexuality (only one non-heterosexual participant), no standard content analytical procedures mandatory for categorization, and the fact that the study was based on retrospective participant recall. Mackey et al., on the other hand, did not mention the limitations of their study. Those limitations could include a small sample size, the ‘broadness’ of categorized groups, as well as the lack of diversity among respondents.