Introduction
This assignment is going to review the study titled “Social Attitudes Regarding Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Health Disparities: Results from a National Probability Sample” by Hatzenbuehler et al. (2017). This paper’s purpose is to identify whether the article under consideration has drawn sufficient attention to all the steps in conducting a research project. The review will comment on the literature review, research question, quantitative methodology, data collection procedures, data analysis, findings, ethical considerations, and limitations.
Does the Study’s Literature Review Meet the Requirements?
The literature review is the first section that comes after the study’s abstract though it does not have an appropriate heading. It offers a conceptualization of the article’s variables, including individual forms of stigma, structural stigma, and state-level policies. Furthermore, the literature review provides scientific evidence to justify why the study focuses on the relationship between social attitudes regarding same-sex marriages and smoking and self-rated health among LGBT individuals. The article relies on professional and credible sources that refer to journal articles (Strutz et al., 2015; Rostosky et al., 2010) and books (Institute of Medicine, 2011). A legal case (Obergefell v. Hodges) was even used to demonstrate that the Supreme Court considers the issue and allows same-sex individuals to marry. The majority of the reference used in the study by Hatzenbuehler et al. (2017) was written in a 10-year time frame between 2008 and 2017. It means that the researchers relied on timely and credible evidence.
Then, it is reasonable to consider what requirements the literature review should meet. Yegidis et al. (2018) explain that this section is typically used before data collection in quantitative studies to learn more about the research problem. Professional journal articles and books are among the most requested and valuable sources (Yegidis et al., 2018). This information demonstrates that Hatzenbuehler et al. (2017) invested sufficient energy to create a suitable literature review. On the one hand, this section contains credible and reliable data, and the quality of sources used proves this claim. On the other hand, the authors managed to use this research part in accordance with the selected methodology. It is so because the literature review is considered a basis for a future quantitative project.
Does the Article Have Explicitly Stated Research Question?
Even though the article does not offer a research question in an interrogative form, it conveys this information in a statement. It refers to investigating how social attitudes affect the LGBT populations’ health, which is mentioned close to the end of the literature review section (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2017). Based on this statement, the authors offer two hypotheses that they try to check. The first is that higher levels of support for same-sex marriage will reduce smoking and poor self-rated health among LGBT individuals. The second hypothesis stipulates that communities with such support levels will witness lower sexual orientation disparities in self-rated health and smoking. It means that the scientists explicitly define what they are going to research and what conclusions they are going to reach.
Simultaneously, it is reasonable to consider how research questions should be formatted. Yegidis et al. (2018) stipulate that genuine questions should be used to guide research, while no statements are suitable in this case. When it comes to quantitative studies, questions should involve all the variables that the authors intend to measure. Regarding the article under review, they are smoking behaviors and self-rated health. Thus, this information analysis demonstrates that the article by Hatzenbuehler et al. (2017) has some inefficiencies. It relates to the fact that the scientists failed to articulate a research question in the proper form. However, it is possible to mention that the two hypotheses mitigate the adverse effect of the lacking question by focusing on variables and expected findings.
Is a Quantitative Methodology Suitable for the Study?
The article under review does not have an explicit statement that it follows a quantitative methodology. However, this conclusion becomes evident after reading the abstract and the whole study. It refers to the fact that Hatzenbuehler et al. (2017) relied on the completed Gallup Daily tracking survey of 373,352 adults, and 11,949 people (3.8%) identified themselves as LGBT population (p. 512). Since the authors wanted to investigate social attitudes that affected the LGBT populations’ health, focusing on smoking and self-rate health, they decided to use a quantitative approach. The opportunity to identify a statistically significant connection based on numerical data analysis between the social attitudes and the dependent variables explains the given methodology’s use.
It is also reasonable to consider whether the selected methodology is suitable for researching the problem and testing the hypotheses. Yegidis et al. (2018) stipulate that scientists should use a quantitative method when they want to identify a correlation between two or more variables. The authors also clarify that quantitative descriptive research reaches this goal (Yegidis et al., 2018). This design focuses on natural distribution without introducing any interventions and investigating their effect. Furthermore, ensuring that the study sample is representative of the whole population is another requirement of the selected methodology and design. One should admit that Hatzenbuehler et al. (2017) achieved this goal since they state that their sample represents 90% of the American adult population (p. 512). It demonstrates that the authors have selected the appropriate methodology for their study.
Does the Article Rely on Appropriate Data Collection Procedures and Measures?
The data collection procedures and measures are the following stages that deserves attention. Hatzenbuehler et al. (2017) explain that they rely on the secondary data that was collected through the Gallup Daily tracking survey. In 2012, the survey added a question to find whether respondents identified themselves as members of the LGBT population. Furthermore, the scientists referred to the 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey and the American Community Survey to track same-sex marriage attitudes in all American states (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2017). Smoking and self-rated health were also measured using these surveys. Finally, the 2013 American Community Survey allowed for measuring numerous covariates, including age, race, sex, income level, and others (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2017). This information demonstrates that the article under critique relies on secondary data analysis.
The current task is to identify whether this approach is considered applicable. Yegidis et al. (2018) explain that secondary data analysis is a requested method because it offers many advantages, such as low financial costs and time efficiency. These outcomes are achieved without adversely affecting validity and reliability. Furthermore, Yegidis et al. (2018) argue that the given method is suitable for descriptive quantitative studies. Thus, one can conclude that the article under review relies on the appropriate data collection measures.
Is Data Analysis Plan Clear and Replicable?
The data analysis section explains what actions and calculations scientists have made to obtain research findings. As for Hatzenbuehler et al. (2017), authors state that they use multilevel logistic regression models to deal with the secondary data. They justify the use of this approach through scientific references and mention that Mplus (version 7.11) was applied to analyze the data (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2017). The researchers offer a step-by-step explanation of their data analysis plan, which contributes to a better understanding of how they have achieved their results.
There is no doubt that scientists should draw adequate attention to this research stage since it helps identify a relationship among quantitative study variables. It is possible to conduct statistical analysis manually or automatically, but Yegidis et al. (2018) state that the second option is more efficient. Scientists can use various computer software applications for their analysis, and the information above has demonstrated that Hatzenbuehler et al. (2017) relied on one of them. Thus, it is possible to conclude that data analysis has been performed at a decent level.
Does the Article Summarize the Main Findings?
This section is of significance because it reveals the results that scientists have achieved. Hatzenbuehler et al. (2017) summarize the findings in three tables, while one of them presents descriptive statistics. The data demonstrate that approving same-sex marriage attitudes lead to the fact that LGBT individuals were less likely to smoke and report poor self-rated health (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2017). Statistical figures prove this claim and reveal that the results are statistically significant. These findings precede the discussion section that interprets the results in detail and explains their importance for society and the whole research field.
Scientists should ensure that they adequately present their findings to increase the quality of their research. Yegidis et al. (2018) claim that quantitative articles use this section to summarize the statistical analysis results, while graphs, tables, and other graphical means are helpful. Simultaneously, Yegidis et al. (2018) stipulate that a separate discussion section is necessary to interpret the results and explain how they relate to the hypotheses. That is why one can say that the findings are appropriately presented in the study under critique.
Are Ethical Considerations Adequately Addressed?
It is reasonable to draw sufficient attention to ethical issues in social work research. It is so because these considerations ensure that participants are not subject to forbidden or harmful practices (Yegidis et al., 2018). Today, the research field focuses on numerous issues, including voluntary consent, anonymity, confidentiality, and others. Scientists should address all of them to make sure that their participants’ physical and emotional well-being and personal information are well protected. That is why there are institutional review boards, and their responsibility is to check whether studies follow the requirements explained above (Yegidis et al., 2018). It denotes that ethical considerations significantly affect the study’s quality.
Some researchers do not take specific actions to meet such standards, which can happen when dealing with secondary data analysis. Since other organizations have already collected all the data, scientists cannot harm respondents and disclose their personal information. That is why it is not a problem that the study by Hatzenbuehler et al. (2017) does not address ethical considerations. It is so because the surveys have already met the requirements. However, one can suppose that the authors could present this information by explaining how the surveys had addressed these issues.
Do the Authors Present Limitations?
Every research design implies some limitations, and scientists should address them. Hatzenbuehler et al. (2017) have a separate section to disclose their study’s shortcomings. They include insufficient LGBT identity measurement, different relationships between self-rated health and sexual orientation compared to sexual behavior, limited operationalization of social attitudes, and the Gallup Daily tracking survey’s low response rate (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2017). The authors present these limitations and explain how they could affect the findings.
However, one can admit that shortcomings should deserve more attention. Yegidis et al. (2018) state that scientists need to describe what they have done to minimize adverse influence and assess how successful their effort has been. The information above clarifies that Hatzenbuehler et al. (2017) have failed to address this in their study. Instead, they have only focused on introducing the identified obstacles and explaining their effect. That is why one can admit that the article under critique can be improved regarding how it approaches its limitations.
Conclusion
The present review has offered a comprehensive and systematic critique of a quantitative article. In general, the study by Hatzenbuehler et al. (2017) meets all the requirements that should be addressed. It refers to the fact that the literature review, data collection procedures, data analysis plan, and findings are covered in detail. As for the research question and limitations, some inefficiencies have been identified, while the ethical considerations have not been discussed at all. However, it is challenging to mention that these issues have significantly affected the research. It is so because it is possible to understand the research question by relying on an appropriate statement while using secondary data explains the failure to discuss ethical issues. Thus, one can conclude that the article under critique satisfies the recommended requirements for a research study.
References
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Flores, A. R., & Gates, G. J. (2017). Social attitudes regarding same-sex marriage and LGBT health disparities: Results from a national probability sample.Journal of Social Issues, 73(3), 508-528. Web.
Yegidis, B. L., Weinbach, R. W., & Myers, L. L. (2018). Research methods for social workers (8th ed.). Pearson.