Involving Adults With Autism Plus Learning Disability Essay (Critical Writing)

The critiqued article authored by Tozer, Atkin, and Wenham (2014) is dedicated to exploring the perspective or adults whose siblings have autism plus learning disability on the issues of family support. The first thing to look at in a study is its purpose, i.e. why the study was conducted and what was pursued in it. Tozer et al. (2014) specify that the study was needed because the perspective of siblings in studies of people with learning disabilities had been overlooked by researchers, while this perspective can provide a valuable insight into the perceived need for support in families with people with learning disabilities. The study pursued understanding adult siblings’ experiences and perceptions concerning service support.

The qualitative research design was chosen for this study, and the choice does comply with the purpose. A quantitative approach is applicable to cases where something needs to be measured, while a qualitative approach is for exploring issues that are hard to measure or systematize (Marshall & Rossman, 2015). If the goal of a study is to interpret or understand something, as in the critiqued article, the research methods should be qualitative.

Sampling is an important element of an academic study because a correct sample allows generalizing the results, which is the indicator of the validity of generated knowledge (“Critiquing research articles,” 2012). In the study by Tozer et al. (2014), participants were found on specialized websites, such as the website of Sibs, the “only UK charity representing the needs of siblings of disabled people” (“Aims, history, strategy,” 2017). Participants were approached with the purpose to conduct a study with their involvement, and their consent and willingness were the inclusion criteria.

Since the method is interviewing, a particular aspect of the study that should be addressed with attention is the researchers’ perspective (Ryan, Coughlan, & Cronin, 2007). In qualitative studies, researchers deal with data that can be easily misinterpreted because they are less definitive and measurable than quantitative data (Greenhalgh & Taylor, 1997).

The researchers’ perspective needs to be addressed to ensure that any bias is eliminated from the study. In the critiqued article, the authors are experts who have worked with a lot with people with disabilities. Their methods were reviewed by an ethics committee to ensure that there was a “formal support mechanism available to those [who were] interviewed” (Tozer et al., 2014, p. 294). Based on the researcher’s expertise and the fact of inspection from an ethics committee, it can be concluded that the elimination of bias was properly addressed in the given study.

The data collection method was interviewing. The researchers met people with disabilities and their siblings in an informal setting to have tea and talk calmly. If the participants were becoming anxious, the sessions were interrupted for a break or terminated. In-depth interviews are different from open-ended questionnaires in terms of the structure: in the latter, researchers have a definitive set of questions, while in the former, the conversation may flow, and follow-up questions may rise.

Upon collecting data, the next step in an academic study is data analysis. To analyze the obtained data, Tozer et al. (2014) used the participant observation perspective to present the findings in the form of revealed common developments, general themes, and similar perceptions. No data analysis tools were used, i.e. the researchers did not pursue creating a systematic review of their findings.

The credibility of results is one of the crucial considerations in a study. Tozer et al. (2014) express their concerns about the credibility because the study was limited to a convenience-based sample. For example, it can be speculated that the study would have generated different results if it had been conducted in a different country. However, with the consideration of this limitation, it can be concluded that the results are credible within the context of families with people with disabilities in the UK. The authors’ expertise in the area of disability studies is a major contribution to the credibility. Also, the importance of results should be addressed. As the authors explain, the results are important because they provide a valuable perspective on families of people with disabilities, which allows designing better support programs in the future.

A major conclusion drawn by Tozer et al. (2014) is that “it is good practice to prepare people with autism and learning disabilities for new experiences and people…through visual and written information about a future event and, if possible, gain their agreement to a meeting” (p. 298). The conclusion is fully supported by the obtained data, as the researchers show how people with learning disabilities can be addressed and prepared for interaction by special notes delivered to them prior to a planned intervention.

The transferability of the study’s results is one of the main concerns of the authors, as they state that the study was limited due to the lack of time and resources. It is expected that a different setting and sampling might generate different results. However, the perspective described in the study is still valuable because the perceptions of real-life people are collected and analyzed, which allows researchers to understand the issue of support in families with people with disabilities more profoundly.

References

Aims, history, strategy. (2017). Web.

Critiquing research articles. (2012). Web.

Greenhalgh, T., & Taylor, R. (1997). Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research). British Medical Journal, 315(7110), 736-743.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2015). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(12), 738-745.

Tozer, R., Atkin, K., & Wenham, A. (2014). ‘My brother likes meeting new people, but don’t ask him any direct questions’: Involving adults with autism plus learning disability in a qualitative research project. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(4), 292-300.