Australian Government Department of Health. (2003). The Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHWB). 2019, from https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/mental-health/national-survey-mental-health-and-wellbeing-summary-results/2007 Bowers, D. a., Bewick, B., House, A., & Owens, D. (2013). Understanding clinical papers (Third edition. ed.): Wiley Blackwell. Gravetter, F. J. a., & Forzano, L.-A. B. (2012). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (Fourth edition. ed.): Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Greenhalgh, T. a. (2014). How to read a paper : the basics of evidence-based medicine (Fifth edition. ed.): John Wiley & Sons Inc. Hoffmann, T. a., Bennett, S. P., & Mar, C. D. (2017). Evidence-Based Practice Across the Health Professions (Third edition. ed.): Elsevier. Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2008). Introduction to research methods in psychology (Second edition. ed.): Prentice Hall. Kelly, P. J., Kyngdon, F., Ingram, I., Deane, F. P., Baker, A. L., & Osborne, B. A. (2018). The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire‐8: Psychometric properties in a cross‐sectional survey of people attending residential substance abuse treatment. Drug and Alcohol Review, 37(1), 79-86. doi: 10.1111/dar.12522 Lawrence, D., Hancock, K. J., & Kisely, S. (2013). The gap in life expectancy from preventable physical illness in psychiatric patients in Western Australia: retrospective analysis of population based registers. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 346(7909), 13-13. Nasir, B. F., Toombs, M. R., Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan, S., Kisely, S., Gill, N. S., Black, E., Ranmuthugala, G., Ostini, R., Nicholson, G. C., Hayman, N., & Beccaria, G.. (2018). Common mental disorders among Indigenous people living in regional, remote and metropolitan Australia: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 8(6). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020196 Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research (Fourth Edition. ed.): Wiley. Sedgwick, P. (2014). Cross sectional studies: advantages and disadvantages. BMJ : British Medical Journal, 348, g2276. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g2276 Setia, M. S. (2016). Methodology Series Module 3: Cross-sectional Studies. Indian journal of dermatology, 61(3), 261-264. doi: 10.4103/0019-5154.182410 Shafiei, T., Biggs, L. J., Small, R., McLachlan, H. L., & Forster, D. A. (2018). Characteristics of women calling the panda perinatal anxiety & depression australia national helpline: A cross-sectional study. Archives of Women's Mental Health. doi: 10.1007/s00737-018-0868-4 Van Heyningen, T., Honikman, S., Myer, L., Onah, M. N., Field, S., & Tomlinson, M. (2017). Prevalence and predictors of anxiety disorders amongst low-income pregnant women in urban South Africa: a cross-sectional study. Archives of Women's Mental Health(6), 765. doi: 10.1007/s00737-017-0768-z Vogt, W. P. (2005). Dictionary of statistics & methodology : a nontechnical guide for the social sciences (Third edition. ed.): Sage Publications.
Thank you for interesting in our services. We are a non-profit group that run this website to share documents. We need your help to maintenance this website.
To keep our site running, we need your help to cover our server cost (about $400/m), a small donation will help us a lot. Please help us to share our service with your friends.
A cross-sectional study looks at data at a single point in time. The participants in this type of study are selected based on particular variables of interest. Cross-sectional studies are often used in developmental psychology, but this method is also used in many other areas, including social science and education. Cross-sectional studies are observational in nature and are known as descriptive research, not causal or relational, meaning that you can't use them to determine the cause of something, such as a disease. Researchers record the information that is present in a population, but they do not manipulate variables. This type of research can be used to describe characteristics that exist in a community, but not to determine cause-and-effect relationships between different variables. This method is often used to make inferences about possible relationships or to gather preliminary data to support further research and experimentation.
Example: Researchers studying developmental psychology might select groups of people who are different ages but investigate them at one point in time. By doing this, any differences among the age groups can be attributed to age differences rather than something that happened over time. Some of the key characteristics of a cross-sectional study include:
Think of a cross-sectional study as a snapshot of a particular group of people at a given point in time. Unlike longitudinal studies, which look at a group of people over an extended period, cross-sectional studies are used to describe what is happening at the present moment.This type of research is frequently used to determine the prevailing characteristics in a population at a certain point in time. For example, a cross-sectional study might be used to determine if exposure to specific risk factors might correlate with particular outcomes. A researcher might collect cross-sectional data on past smoking habits and current diagnoses of lung cancer, for example. While this type of study cannot demonstrate cause and effect, it can provide a quick look at correlations that may exist at a particular point.
For example, researchers may find that people who reported engaging in certain health behaviors were also more likely to be diagnosed with specific ailments. While a cross-sectional study cannot prove for certain that these behaviors caused the condition, such studies can point to a relationship worth investigating further. Cross-sectional studies are popular because they have several benefits that are useful to researchers. Cross-sectional studies typically allow researchers to collect a great deal of information quickly. Data is often obtained inexpensively using self-report surveys. Researchers are then able to amass large amounts of information from a large pool of participants. For example, a university might post a short online survey about library usage habits among biology majors, and the responses would be recorded in a database automatically for later analysis. This is a simple, inexpensive way to encourage participation and gather data across a wide swath of individuals who fit certain criteria. Researchers can collect data on a few different variables to see how they affect a certain condition. For example, differences in sex, age, educational status, and income might correlate with voting tendencies or give market researchers clues about purchasing habits. Although researchers can't use cross-sectional studies to determine causal relationships, these studies can provide useful springboards to further research. For example, when looking at a public health issue, such as whether a particular behavior might be linked to a particular illness, researchers might utilize a cross-sectional study to look for clues that can spur further experimental studies. For example, researchers might be interested in learning how exercise influences cognitive health as people age. They might collect data from different age groups on how much exercise they get and how well they perform on cognitive tests. Conducting such a study can give researchers clues about the types of exercise that might be most beneficial to the elderly and inspire further experimental research on the subject. No method of research is perfect. Cross-sectional studies also have potential drawbacks. Researchers can't always be sure that the conditions a cross-sectional study measures are the result of a particular factor's influence. In many cases, the differences among individuals could be attributed to variation among the study subjects. In this way, cause-and-effect relationships are more difficult to determine in a cross-sectional study than they are in a longitudinal study. This type of research simply doesn't allow for conclusions about causation. For example, a study conducted some 20 years ago queried thousands of women about their consumption of diet soft drinks. The results of the study, published in the medical journal Stroke, associated diet soft drink intake with stroke risk that was greater than that of those who did not consume such beverages. In other words, those who drank lots of diet soda were more prone to strokes. However, correlation does not equal causation. The increased stroke risk might arise from any number of factors that tend to occur among those who drink diet beverages. For example, people who consume sugar-free drinks might be more likely to be overweight or diabetic than those who drink the regular versions. Therefore, they might be at greater risk of stroke—regardless of what they drink. Groups can be affected by cohort differences that arise from the particular experiences of a group of people. For example, individuals born during the same period might witness the same important historical events, but their geographic regions, religious affiliations, political beliefs, and other factors might affect how they perceive such events. Surveys and questionnaires about certain aspects of people's lives might not always result in accurate reporting. For example, respondents might not disclose certain behaviors or beliefs out of embarrassment, fear, or other limiting perception. Typically, no mechanism for verifying this information exists. Cross-sectional research differs from longitudinal studies in several important ways. The key difference is that a cross-sectional study is designed to look at a variable at a particular point in time. A longitudinal study evaluates multiple measures over an extended period to detect trends and changes.
Cross-Sectional Study
Longitudinal Study
Longitudinal studies tend to require more resources; these are often more expensive than those used by cross-sectional studies. They are also more likely to be influenced by what is known as selective attrition, which means that some individuals are more likely to drop out of a study than others. Because a longitudinal study occurs over a span of time, researchers can lose track of subjects. Individuals might lose interest, move to another city, change their minds about participating, etc. This can influence the validity of the study.
One of the advantages of cross-sectional studies is that data is collected all at once, so participants are less likely to quit the study before data is fully collected. Cross-sectional studies can be useful research tools in many areas of health research. By learning about what is going on in a specific population, researchers can improve their understanding of relationships among certain variables and develop additional studies that explore these conditions in greater depth. |
Is a cross-sectional design in which there are two or more sample of respondents and information is obtained from each sample only once?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 frojeostern Inc.
