Introduction
Research studies normally provide the basis for subsequent studies and give recommendations that are central in the formulation of interventions aimed at solving a given problem. For research to form a scientific basis, it must fulfill various conditions of scientific merit. The scientific merit of an article justifies its applicability in further research or the application of its findings. An article that has scientific merit has valid and reliable findings, which are fit for extrapolation to the general population or a research design that one can replicate. Although research articles have scientific merits, they also have scientific demerits, which reduce the validity and reliability of their findings. According to Ioannids (2007), scientific evaluation of the merits in a research article is pivotal in understanding and translating the findings, and determining the credibility level of the research (p.324). Thus, evaluation of the scientific merit of a research article is scientific progress of assessing reliability, validity, and credibility of findings in a bid to promote the application of recommendations or research insights obtained. In this view, this essay examines the scientific merit of the article “An Invariant Dimensional Liability Model of Gender Differences in Mental Disorder Prevalence: Evidence from a National Sample”.
Validity and Reliability
The validity and reliability of research depend on the methodology that a study uses in the study of a given phenomenon. Usually, validity and reliability are attributes of an instrument that a researcher uses in measuring certain variables in research. In the aspect of validity, Leedy and Ormrod (2011) state that, validity is the extent to which an instrument is accurate in measuring a variable of interest (p.28). Hence, it means that the instrument that a researcher uses must be accurate enough to measure certain attributes and exclude confounding variables. The study used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–IV) in determining gendered tendencies in externalizing and internalizing liability dimensions. DSM-IV is an accurate instrument that measures the degree of mental disorders among patients and can easily differentiate externalized attributes from internalized attributes that people exhibit. Stinchfield (2003) argues that DSM-IV diagnostic criterion has considerable validity, accuracy, and reliability in the measurement of mental disorders (p.181). Hence, the DSM-IV is a valid instrument that enhanced the validity of the research article.
Reliability measures the consistency of an instrument and reproducibility of the research design. The research article utilized DSM-IV, which is an accurate instrument, yet not reliable due to many confounding variables. According to Eaton et al. (2012), although the study structured the instrument well, trained lay interviewers collected the data rather than clinicians (p.286). This means that, if clinicians had collected the data, they would have brought different data. Hence, the low reliability of the instrument is a setback in the research because it does not only affect reliability, but also the validity and accuracy of the overall study. Leedy and Ormrod (2011) assert that instruments that measure psychological variables have low reliability because they measure abstract variables that are highly subjective (p.29). In the research article, attributes categorized as externalizing liabilities and those categorized as internalizing liabilities are decidedly abstract and have no clear-cut boundaries to differentiate them using DSM-IV and perception of researchers. However, to enhance the reliability and credibility of the findings, the study used information from a large number of participants, 43, 093.
Scientific Merit
Every research article must have scientific merit to warrant its publishing and application in the realm of research. The problem statement is one of the factors that determine scientific merit of a paper. For a research to be scientifically sound, it must have a scientific basis for its research. Leedy and Ormrod (2011) argue that, a researcher must clearly state problem statement in a single phrase because it represents overall objective of the study (p.48). In the article, it is quite evident that there is a clear problem statement of the study. The problem statement of the study states; a gender-based occurrence of mental disorders subsists among the population, which are attributable to differential externalizing and internalizing of liabilities that have gender orientation. Through the problem statement, the study revealed that, a gendered occurrence of mental disorders exists, as men tend to exhibit externalize dimension, while women tend to exhibit internalizing dimension. Thus, such clear problem statement is a scientific merit, because it clearly outlines the course of study.
Additionally, the study has a hypothesis, which shows the purpose and objective of the study. Since there is gendered occurrence of mental disorders, the study hypothesized that, while men show high incidences of externalizing disorders, women show high incidences of internalizing disorders (Eaton, et al., 2011, p.283). The hypothesis provided the researchers an opportunity to test their assumptions after performing the study. This aspect implies that, the study went through a scientific process of hypothesis testing where one can reject or accept the assumptions of the study. The outcome of the study that there exists a gendered occurrence of mental disorders is more credible than if the study had not hypothesized at the beginning. Therefore, with regard to the hypothesis, the study fulfilled a scientific merit. Without hypothesis, it would be hard for one to focus on the objective of the study and come up with credible conclusion.
Methodology is another merit of a scientific article. The design of the study normally reflects methodology of the research. Broadly, a study can use qualitative or quantitative research design in collecting relevant data from participants or subjects of the study. The nature of data that a researcher wants to collect determines the design of the study. Given that the study involved mental disorder, it employed qualitative research design where participants gave their subjective opinions. According to DeCoster (2001), design of the study indicates the variables that a study is measuring coupled with how research instruments obtain their values during the study (p.11). Hence, the study utilized qualitative research design, in which it assessed secondary data from a study conducted earlier. In this case, the study assumed research design of the previous study and analyzed data appropriately. Moreover, research design determines the nature of instrument for collecting data as the study used DSM-IV in diagnosis of various mental disorders among the participants. Overall, the study used appropriate design that is scientifically acceptable.
Advancement of Knowledge
The study has led to the advancement in psychology because it has revealed a new dimension of knowledge in mental disorders. Usually, researchers have held that mental disorders have equal impact on men and women, but this study has revealed that mental disorders have gender orientations. Although many studies have shown that there are differences in prevalence of mental disorders between genders, they have never established mechanism through which such prevalence occur. According to Eaton et al. (2012), the study did not only seek to explain gender difference in occurrence of mental disorders, but also sought to establish orientation of their occurrence in the population. Thus, the study confirmed that there is a gendered occurrence of mental disorders and supported comorbidity survey.
Concerning the orientation of the mental illness, the study has shown that men have a tendency of externalizing dimensions, while women have a tendency of internalizing dimensions. Such differences in the way men and women respond to mental disorders have given an insight into the mechanism of mental disorders. Initially, psychiatrists thought that men and women have similar responses when they have mental disorders, but the research has shed more light on their occurrence, prevalence, and orientation. Eaton et al. (2012) conclude that, apparent gender difference in occurrence of mental orders is attributable to variation in externalizing and internalizing liabilities by the subjects (p.186). Thus, the evidence has advanced knowledge of mental disorders by explaining the mechanism of their occurrence between men and women.
Contributions to Theory
This study has significantly contributed to social theories of mental disorders because it has revealed that the gendered disorders exhibit different impacts on a person. Afifi (2007) asserts that, the society has stereotyped that men are prone to alcohol and drug abuse, while women are prone emotional disturbance (p.386). Such perceptions have influenced and obscured the impact of gender and social elements on mental disorders. However, the study has confirmed that gendered mental conditions are not merely attributable to gender, but also social factors. Therefore, from the study, mental disorder is comorbid, because social and demographic factors influence the level of a disorder in an individual. Given that stress factors such as anxiety, depression, and antisocial behavior among others influence the occurrence of mental disorders, they emanate from social arena in which gender has some influence. Thus, mental disorders occur due to a complex of social factors in a society in which an individual is part of in his/her life.
Moreover, the study has contributed to theory of psychopathology, which elucidates the occurrence of mental disorders. In psychopathology theory, there are internalization and externalization dimensions of mental disorders that have gender orientations. According to Eaton et al. (2012), men tend to externalize their feelings, while women tend to internalize their feelings (p.287). Therefore, men externalize their feelings by abusing drugs and alcohol, whereas women internalize their feelings by exhibiting depression and anxiety, which destabilizes their emotions. Such discovery has led to the realization that women and men have different ways of handling and expressing stress in their lives. In the account of psychopathology, Matlin (2011) explains that, mental disorders are prevalent among women because they ruminate and become pessimistic about life, thus letting negative emotions overwhelm them. In this view, rumination is a process of internalizing feelings and submitting to influence of negative emotions. Therefore, the study has not only contributed to gendered occurrence of mental disorders, but also elucidated their mechanism through psychopathology theory.
Hallmarks, Supportive Evidence and Terminology
The study has ensured that it meets the necessary hallmarks of a good research. A strong research should have hallmarks such as having purpose, set objectives, research questions, hypothesis, reliability, and generalizability (Leedy & Ormrod, 2011, p.51). The purpose of the study was to determine the influence of gender on the occurrence of mental disorders, and further explain their occurrence in terms of externalization and internalization of emotions. Moreover, the study had objectives, which stipulated how to collect and analyze data obtained from participants. Research questions are also another hallmark of a good research that the study fulfilled, because the study sought to establish if mental disorders have gender orientation and whether they are comorbid. Additionally, the study sought to find out what kind of model best explains differential occurrence of mental disorders between men and women. The study also has well formulated hypothesis, which states that, women have internalizing tendencies, while men have externalizing tendencies. Acceptance of the hypothesis makes it credible to generalize the findings and apply them to the general population.
The study has credible evidence that support the research as well as the findings. The background of the study has enough literature review that contextualizes the study and states the problem of the research, for through the background one gains an insight into the theme of the study. From the literature review, it is evident that the study has valid scientific basis to warrant the study. Moreover, the research design and methodology is particularly compelling because the study adopted earlier design of another research. Regarding terminology, the study employed words such as gender differences, prevalence rates, internalizing, externalizing, and comorbidity (Eaton, et al., 2012, p. 282). The study used limited terminology, which ensures proper communication of the findings of the study.
Conclusion
A research study must meet necessary scientific requirements for its findings to contribute to the growing body of knowledge and application in development science. Evaluation of a study in terms of validity, reliability, scientific merit, advancement of knowledge, contribution to theory, and fulfillment of research hallmarks shows that it qualifies as a scientifically valid study. Therefore, the article achieved the required scientific merits, and thus it is satisfactory to use its findings and recommendations in conducting more research in the field of psychology.
References
Afifi, M. (2007). Gender differences in mental health. Singapore Medical Journal, 48(5), 385-391.
DeCoster, J. (2001). Psychological Research Methods. Psychology, 2(1), 1-38.
Eaton, N. R., Keyes, K. M., Krueger, R. F., Balsis, S., Skodol, A. E., Markon, K. E., &
Hasin, D. S. (2012). An invariant dimensional liability model of gender differences in mental disorder prevalence: Evidence from a national sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(1), 282-288. Web.
Ioannids, J. (2007). Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific Literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 324-329.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2011). Practical research: Planning and design (10th ed.). New Jersey, NJ: Pearson.
Matlin, M. (2011). The psychology of women. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
Stinchfield, R. (2003). Reliability, Validity, and Classification Accuracy of a Measure of
DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria for Pathological Gambling. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(1), 180-182. Web.