What are the advantages and disadvantages of descriptive correlational research?
Show
The research in which the relationship between two sets of variables is examined to determine whether they are associated or correlated is called correlational research. To understand the meaning of correlation research, at the beginning it is necessary to understand the meaning of variables. In psychology, variables are behaviors, events, or other characteristics that can change, or vary in some way. For example, in a study to determine whether psychological understanding makes a difference in managerial behavior, the variables would be psychological understanding and managerial behavior. The former psychological understanding is called independent and later the managerial behavior is called the dependent variable. The correlation between two variables is shown through the correlation coefficient where the value is measured between -1 and +1. When the correlation coefficient is close to +1 then there is a positive correlation between the two variables. When the value is close to -1, then there is a negative correlation between the two variables and when the value is close to zero there is no relationship between the two variables. ExampleLet us take an example to understand correlational research. Consider hypothetically, a researcher is studying a correlation between psychological understanding and managerial behavior. In this study, there are two variables psychological understanding and managerial behavior. Let us say managerial behavior has a positive correlation with psychological understanding. This means the managers who have psychological understanding are likely to have good managerial behavior. Types Correlational ResearchEssentially, there are three types of correlational research: 1. Positive CorrelationA positive correlation between two variables is when an increase in one variable leads to an increase in the other variable and a decrease in one variable will see a decrease in another variable. For example, the amount of money a person might have positively correlated with the number of cars she/he has. 2. Negative CorrelationA negative correlation is quite literally the opposite of a positive correlation. This means, if there is an increase in one variable, the second variable will show a decrease and vice versa. For example, as more employees are laid off, satisfaction among remaining employees decreases. 3. No CorrelationNo correlation means two variables are not correlated to each other. This means a change in one variable may not necessarily see a change in the other variable. For example, being a millionaire and happiness are not correlated. This means an increase in money does not lead to happiness. Advantages and Disadvantages of Correlational ResearchAdvantages:
Disadvantages
12.1. IntroductionCorrelational studies aim to find out if there are differences in the characteristics of a population depending on whether or not its subjects have been exposed to an event of interest in the naturalistic setting. In eHealth, correlational studies are often used to determine whether the use of an eHealth system is associated with a particular set of user characteristics and/or quality of care patterns (Friedman & Wyatt, 2006). An example is a computerized provider order entry (cpoe) study to differentiate the background, usage and performance between clinical users and non-users of the cpoe system after its implementation in a hospital. Correlational studies are different from comparative studies in that the evaluator does not control the allocation of subjects into comparison groups or assignment of the intervention to specific groups. Instead, the evaluator defines a set of variables including an outcome of interest then tests for hypothesized relations among these variables. The outcome is known as the dependent variable and the variables being tested for association are the independent variables. Correlational studies are similar to comparative studies in that they take on an objectivist view where the variables can be defined, measured and analyzed for the presence of hypothesized relations. As such, correlational studies face the same challenges as comparative studies in terms of their internal and external validity. Of particular importance are the issues of design choices, selection bias, confounders, and reporting consistency. In this chapter we describe the basic types of correlational studies seen in the eHealth literature and their methodological considerations. Also included are three case examples to show how these studies are done. 12.2. Types of Correlational StudiesCorrelational studies, better known as observational studies in epidemiology, are used to examine event exposure, disease prevalence and risk factors in a population (Elwood, 2007). In eHealth, the exposure typically refers to the use of an eHealth system by a population of subjects in a given setting. These subjects may be patients, providers or organizations identified through a set of variables that are thought to differ in their measured values depending on whether or not the subjects were “exposed” to the eHealth system. There are three basic types of correlational studies that are used in eHealth evaluation: cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies (Vandenbroucke et al., 2014). These are described below.
A cross-sectional survey is a type of cross-sectional study where the data source is drawn from postal questionnaires and interviews. This topic will be covered in the chapter on methods for survey studies. 12.3. Methodological ConsiderationsWhile correlational studies are considered less rigorous than rcts, they are the preferred designs when it is neither feasible nor ethical to conduct experimental trials. Key methodological issues arise in terms of: (a) design options, (b) biases and confounders, (c) controlling for confounding effects, (d) adherence to good practices, and (e) reporting consistency. These issues are discussed below. 12.3.1. Design OptionsThere are growing populations with multiple chronic conditions and healthcare interventions. They have made it difficult to design rcts with sufficient sample size and long-term follow-up to account for all the variability this phenomenon entails. Also rcts are intended to test the efficacy of an intervention in a restricted sample of subjects under ideal settings. They have limited generalizability to the population at large in routine settings (Fleurence, Naci, & Jansen, 2010). As such, correlational studies, especially those involving the use of routinely collected ehr data from the general population, have become viable alternatives to rcts. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of the three design options presented above. They are listed below.
12.3.2. Biases and ConfoundersShamliyan, Kane, and Dickinson (2010) conducted a systematic review on tools used to assess the quality of observational studies. Despite the large number of quality scales and checklists found in the literature, they concluded that the universal concerns are in the areas of selection bias, confounding, and misclassification. These concerns, also mentioned by Vandenbroucke and colleagues (2014) in their reporting guidelines for observational studies, are summarized below.
It is important to note that bias and confounding are not synonymous. Bias is caused by finding the wrong association from flawed information or subject selection. Confounding is factually correct with respect to the relationship found, but is incorrect in its interpretation due to an extraneous factor that is associated with both the exposure and outcome. 12.3.3. Controlling for Confounding EffectsThere are three common methods to control for confounding effects. These are by matching, stratification, and modelling. They are described below (Higgins & Green, 2011).
12.3.4. Adherence to Good Practices in Prospective Observational StudiesThe ispor Good Research Practices Task Force published a set of recommendations in designing, conducting and reporting prospective observational studies for comparative effectiveness research (Berger et al., 2012) that are relevant to eHealth evaluation. Their key recommendations are listed below.
12.3.5. The Need for Reporting ConsistencyVandenbroucke et al. (2014) published an expanded version of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (strobe) statement to improve the reporting of observational studies that can be applied in eHealth evaluation. It is made up of 22 items, of which 18 are common to cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies, with four being specific to each of the three designs. The 22 reporting items are listed below (for details refer to the cited reference).
The four items specific to study design relate to the reporting of participants, statistical methods, descriptive results and outcome data. They are briefly described below for the three types of designs.
12.4. Case Examples12.4.1. Cohort Study of Automated Immunosuppressive CarePark and colleagues (2010) conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine the association between the use of a cds (clinical decision support) system in post-liver transplant immunosuppressive care and the rates of rejection episode and drug toxicity. The study is summarized below.
12.4.2. Cross-sectional Analysis of EHR Documentation and Care QualityLinder, Schnipper, and Middleton (2012) conducted a cross-sectional study to examine the association between the type of ehr documentation used by physicians and the quality of care provided. The study is summarized below.
12.4.3. Case-control Comparison of Internet Portal UseNielsen, Halamka, and Kinkel (2012) conducted a case-control study to evaluate whether there was an association between active Internet patient portal use by Multiple Sclerosis (ms) patients and medical resource utilization. Patient predictors and barriers to portal use were also identified. The study is summarized below.
12.4.4. LimitationsA general limitation of a correlational study is that it can determine association between exposure and outcomes but cannot predict causation. The more specific limitations of the three case examples cited by the authors are listed below.
12.5. SummaryIn this chapter we described cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies as three types of correlational studies used in eHealth evaluation. The methodological issues addressed include bias and confounding, controlling for confounders, adherence to good practices and consistency in reporting. Three case examples were included to show how eHealth correlational studies are done. 1 ISPOR – International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research References
What is the main disadvantage of descriptive correlational research?The major disadvantage of descriptive correlational research is its inability to reveal causal relationships. Another problem is that such studies are subject to faulty interpretation.
What are the advantages of correlational research?Conclusion: Findings from correlational research can be used to determine prevalence and relationships among variables, and to forecast events from current data and knowledge.
What is a disadvantage of correlational study?Disadvantage of correlational research. Correlation research only uncovers a relationship; it cannot provide a conclusive reason for why there's a relationship. Advantage to experimental research. Allows drawing of conclusions about the causal relationships among variables.
What is descriptive correlational research?Descriptive research is research designed to provide a snapshot of the current state of affairs. Correlational research is research designed to discover relationships among variables and to allow the prediction of future events from present knowledge.
|