Types of Research/Classifying Research
The article under scrutiny documents a study that was carried out by Deanna M. Perez and Wesley G. Jennings in 2012 to evaluate the efficacy of prison-based sex offender treatment programs aimed at reducing recidivism. To achieve this objective, the researchers posed an important question to guide their study. Based on existing evidence, there is an observed orientation towards making the punitive measures for sex offenders tougher than before. This pattern has been observed in many states where punishment was the typical correctional approach deemed appropriate for sex offenders. The pattern has been motivated by the lack of clarity that surrounds the media-initiated idea of a sex crime epidemic. While states are preoccupied with heightening the punitive measures for sex offenders, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association are opposed to this approach. These two organizations are in favor of sex offender treatment programs. Therefore, the important question that guided that study was whether these treatment programs effectively reduce recidivism or not.
The outlined research question points to the purpose of the study. As stated by the researchers, the primary aim of their study was to evaluate the efficacy of institution-based cognitive-behavioral therapy aimed at cutting back on re-offending among sex offense convicts. Going by the established classification criteria, the study passes as exploratory because the researchers noted in their literature review that similar studies are scanty. Additionally, they pointed out that the move by states across the U.S. to toughen the punitive measures for sex crime was motivated by the idea that in the legal sense, ‘sexual predation’ remains an ambiguous concept. Therefore, the existence of ambiguity around the legal definition of sex crimes clearly indicates that the literature that delineates the issue is indeed scanty.
The study adopted an inductive reasoning approach to bring meaning to the arguments presented therein. Such a claim is made because the study uses empirical observations to build a case about the effectiveness of treatment programs for sex offenders. The researchers compare the recidivism patterns of offenders who undergo sex offender treatment with the same patterns for offenders who do not undergo the treatment to come up with their explanations. As such, there is a movement from concrete observations to abstract ideas.
The study based its analysis on two different groups of sex offenders. The first group consisted of 95 inmates who underwent sex offender treatment. Out of this number, 67 inmates completed the treatment leaving 28 non-completers. The second group consisted of 64 inmates who did not undergo any treatment. The follow-up period took up to four years from the date of release. This attribute makes the study’s time dimension longitudinal since it examined the unit of analysis over a prolonged period. Further, the analysis took a quantitative approach since the data were quantified and analyzed in terms of numbers.
Strength of Casual Inference
Causality is crucial in the conduction of research since it paves the way for either reactive or proactive measures in applied research. The study in question did not meet all the three criteria for establishing causality. Although the researchers report the existence of a correlation between sex offender treatment and recidivism after release, there is no mention of temporal order among the variables of the study. However, elements of spuriousness are present in the study because despite there being a correlation between sex offender treatment and recidivism rates, it is clear that these programs do not cause sex crime. Therefore, the study meets only two of the criteria for establishing causality. A plausible explanation for this state of affairs is that the study adopted a pure research approach, which does not have to meet all the causality criteria because it does not beg any action after completion. Consequently, the study’s internal validity is shaky because it is not possible to establish temporal order between sex offender treatment and the recidivism rates for those who underwent treatment.
Measurement Issues
Measurement is a critical aspect of research because it helps researchers to define the subject matter of their studies. Some concepts are easily measurable while others are not, but in both cases, the idea of measurement makes it possible for researchers to gauge the concepts and rate them accordingly. In addition, measurement tools enable research consumers to understand how variables are gauged and rated to yield the study results. It, therefore, played an instrumental role in this study because the study took a quantitative approach. Data analysis and presentation largely depended on the quantification of social phenomena. The sexual crime was constructed to yield empirical data that were eventually presented in the form of numbers.
The key concepts that were outlined in the study include sexual crime, sex offender treatment, and recidivism. All three concepts were operationalized to enable the researchers to come up with meaningful study results. The concept of a sex crime was condensed and approached from the perspective of sex offenders. To link sex offenses to treatment and recidivism, it was necessary to approach the issue from the said perspective because offenders can undergo treatment and recidivate, but the criminal offense itself cannot give such variables. Therefore, approaching the issue from the perspective of offenders made it possible to evaluate behavior and assign relevant numerals to the different aspects of behavior to end up with the study results.
The concept of sex-offender treatment was broken down into phases with specified criteria for completion. The operationalization of this concept yielded what the study referred to as completers and non-completers of the treatment program. Recidivism for its part was operationalized to yield variables such as cumulative survival and survival time, which were used to determine the length of time that it took for the study subjects to recidivate. Only some variables were measured using well-defined scales. For instance, the graph that plots cumulative survival against survival time features well-defined scales for both variables.
The variables in this study were measured based on three levels of measurement viz. ordinal, nominal, and ratio. For example, the classification of participants into different races uses the nominal level of measurement. Similarly, the grouping of the treated offenders as completers and non-completers is an example of the ordinal level of measurement. Finally, recidivism rates are determined by the rate of re-offending and the number of arrests falls under the ratio scale. These measurements were reliable and valid because the results of this study are consistent with the results of the few studies that have been conducted in the same area.
Sampling
This study’s population of interest consisted of male sex offenders who were serving a current prison term with more than 18 months before their release. The sample was representative of the population because it included all the three possible groups of sex offenders in proportional measures. Probability sampling was employed to come up with the study sample because certain criteria such as seventh-grade reading ability and at least 18 months to the end of one’s prison term determined whether an inmate was eligible for the study or not. The study results can be generalized since the sampling procedure qualifies them to be applicable to the other cases apart from the study itself.
Study Design
The study took on a field research approach. This assertion is based on the fact that it used inductive reasoning to explain itself. The authors observed the behavior of inmates over a specified period to come up with explanations of whether sex offender treatment programs were effective or not. Since the study sought to find out if these programs were effective, a field research approach was a perfect choice because it gave them room to examine the behavior of inmates and use the observations to make their conclusions. Further, since related literature was scanty, this approach was the most suitable because it transforms empirical observations into literature. It would be extremely difficult to come up with a credible study if the authors had chosen a research approach that uses established theories to explain empirical phenomena. Thus, the credibility of the study justifies the approach that was taken by these researchers. It passes as a well-planned study that does not need any modification. Given the opportunity to re-conduct the study, the same approach will be employed.