There were five different hypotheses in the article reviewed in this document; all but one of them were written lucidly. Additionally, the authors used a random sapling method that appeared to be well-suited to serve their needs, especially since the population they sampled from was college students. These facts and others are critiqued herein.
¶ … Brady-Amoon's and Fuertes' "Self-efficacy, self-rated abilities, adjustment, and academic performance." This research study had five different hypotheses, all of which were interrelated. All of these hypotheses were fundamentally related to the research question of the study. However, there was a degree of ambiguity in the phrasing of hypotheses five, which states "Self-efficacy, self-rated abilities, and adjustments will be positively associated with college students' academic performance, above and beyond prior academic performance" (Brady-Amoon and Fuertes, 2011, p. 432). The reader is able to discern the meaning of this hypothesis. However, the reference to "above and beyond" is not a clear way of stating that the effects of the constructs of self-efficacy and self-rated ability on adjustment will contribute to improved grades from previous academic efforts. If the authors intended some other meaning aside from an improvement in academics, then they should have stated this fact in some other way. The first of these hypotheses, which states that the authors anticipate a "significant positive correlation between self-efficacy and self-rated abilities" (p. 432) is well stated and fairly lucid.
Variables
Two of the variables included in this study are self-efficacy and self-rated abilities. Both of these variables are continuous and are largely correlational, since each can influence one another. Still, one of the hypotheses in the study was that there is an association between these two variables, which means that technically they are independent. Self-efficacy is the belief that a person has that he or she has the ability to complete a given task, whereas self-rated ability is largely defined as the belief that a specific task can be finished by someone (p. 431).
Sampling Technique
The authors are deserving of praise for the demographics they involved in their sample, which directly correlated to the research question of this study. Their sample population was described as "racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically diverse" (p. 433). Moreover, they chose their sample from a range of different educational institutions. As such, there were also variations in the specific educational programs that students were involved in, although they were all related to liberal arts. A random sampling technique was used by the authors to procure participants. Once the authors were able to establish a few colleges within the greater New York Metropolitan area that granted their permission for students to engage in the study, the authors procured participants via a random method in which they "Made presentations to student clubs and groups, set up and staffed tables in student unions and dining halls, sent e-mails to potential participants…and posted…on electronic messaging boards" (p. 434). The principle strength of using this sort of random sampling method is that there is an equal chance for members of the population to participate in the research study -- which is exactly what the authors want. However, there were also some drawbacks for using this method. For instance, some students had more incentives than others to participate in the study as it was, "one of the many options for students voluntarily participating in an online undergraduate psychology research pool" (p. 434). A simple random sampling method may have been a better one, for the fact that it is more inclusive and participants can be chosen at any stage of the research study.
Instruments
One of the instruments used in the study was the College Self-Efficacy Inventory, which measured self-efficacy. The evidence for reliability and construct validity used is that presented in former research studies. Additionally, the reliability of the former as indicated in previous research studies was compared with that found in the present study as verified by "Cronbach's Alpha of .91" (p. 433). The conclusions of the study could have been strongly influenced by the evidence of reliability and validity, since without such evidence the authors would not have been able to know how reliable and valid this instrument was. It could have skewed the data that determined the findings.
You’re 77% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.