In a study conducted by Macks and Reeve (2007), they asked: Will there be significant differences between the experimental (non-disabled siblings of children with autism) and control (non-disabled siblings of typically developed children) groups on the depression, self-concept, and behavior assessments? According to McCombes’ article (2019), this question fits the criteria in 2 main categories - focused & researchable and relevant & original. The researchers focus on a single topic and problem - essentially, how siblings of children with autism (and their parents) self-rate their mental well-being (specifically regarding depression and self-concept; parents ranked their non-disabled child’s behavior). Additionally, the researchers formed their question by conducting a literature review and answered their question through primary data by creating a quantitative experiment. To fit the criteria in the relevant and original section, the question contributed to an existing academic debate regarding the psychosocial and emotional adjustment of siblings of children with disabilities; such a topic has some studies that contradict other studies. This study was established to collect data from multiple participants (in this case, 86 non-disabled siblings) in order to address a topic (the psychosocial and emotional adjustment of siblings of children with disabilities) that has inconsistent research findings. Because the question fits most of the criteria established by McCombes, Macks and Reeve’s research question is very strong.
In a study conducted by Hodapp and Urbano (2007), they analyze two questions: does a Down Syndrome advantage exist for adult siblings (compared to adult siblings of individuals with autism)? How do sibling relationships among adult siblings of adults with Down Syndrome compare to sibling relationships of adult siblings of adults with autism? According to McCombes (2019), this question fits criteria for at least two categories: feasible & specific and complex & arguable. This question is feasible and specific because it uses specific and well-defined concepts. The researchers had a relatively even experimental group and control group. The control group had typically developed adult siblings while the experimental group was further divided into two groups: adult siblings of adults with Downs and adult siblings of adults with autism. They defined the diagnosis of down syndrome and autism, as well as gathering demographic information to confirm the strength of group categories. Additionally, the question and research paper had the goal of improving the understanding of outcomes among typically-developed adult siblings of individuals with disabilities; specifically, those diagnosed with Down Syndrome and autism. This question is also complex and arguable because it is an open-ended question that required intensive research in the form of a literature review and a thorough survey that was answered by over 1,100 adult siblings. Additionally, this study built on findings from the three previous studies conducted on this topic and thus contributed to and added on further discussion and interpretation of results to the comparisons between adult siblings of individuals with down syndrome and autism. These research questions are strong based on McCombes’ established criteria for research questions.
My research question asks about the association between the mental well-being of adult siblings of individuals with disabilities and/or autism and the quality of the adult siblings’ relationship. My question fits all of McCombes’ research question criteria, specifically: focused & researchable and complex & arguable. My question focuses on a specific population (adult siblings of individuals with disabilities) that compares two important topics that have previously been independently studied and rarely studied as correlational, despite collected evidence that implicitly suggests the relationship. I’m answering it by collecting both primary and secondary research, evident through my survey and research paper as well as the thorough literature review I’m conducting. My question is also complex and arguable because it can’t be answered with a simple yes/no or with a single google search that provides existing answers relating to my question. Additionally, my research question will further the discussion on the relationship between mental health and quality of sibling relationships among adult siblings of individuals with disabilities. I have a strong research question based on McCombes’ criteria for research questions.
"The adjustment of non-disabled siblings of children with autism," is a research study conducted by R. Macks & R. Reeve (2007). Their study sample included 51 families (one non-disabled sibling between ages 7-17 and one parent) with an autistic child and 36 families (one non-disabled sibling between ages 7-17 and one parent) with no developmental disabilities or autism in the immediate family. They recruited participant families from schools in Maryland and Virginia. Macks and Reeve collected quantitative data from surveys. The children participants completed 2 self-rated surveys and parents filled out 2 forms as well. Such questionnaires given to participants had already been established as reliable and valid. The Children’s Depression Inventory Short-Form (CDI-S), the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept scale, the Behavior Assessment System for Children-Parent Rating Scales (BASC-PRS), and a standard demographic survey (also provided a space for comments by the non-disabled child participant). They used several statistical procedures to analyze the data: Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Additionally, a risk scale was created to “compare the cumulative effect of various demographic characteristics on children from both the experimental and comparison groups” (Macks and Reeves, 2007, pp. 1064). Pearson Correlations were completed to examine the relationship between the risk scale and results from the questionnaires. Finally, Fisher Z-values were also calculated to compare risk-scale correlations between experimental and control groups.
"Adult siblings of individuals with Down syndrome versus autism: findings from a large-scale US survey," is a research study conducted by R. Hodapp & R. Urbano, also in 2007. Their sample population included 1,100 typically-developed adult siblings. 640 of the participants had typically-developed siblings while 460 participants had adult siblings with disabilities. The siblings of individuals with disabilities were further categorized into 2 groups: 284 had adult siblings with Down Syndrome and 176 had adult siblings with autism. An online survey was administered around the US but only accessible through a secure Vanderbilt Kennedy Center website. Similarly to Macks and Reeve, Hodapp and Urbano had quantitative questions from a survey. Most were closed-ended that involved either categories or Likert-scale questions. They also included an open-ended section at the end of the survey. All questionnaires were accessed through a webpage or were sent through the mail (if participants didn’t have internet access). The questionnaire included questions that were previously established as valid and reliable. Such questions asked about demographic information (regarding the participant, their brother/sister with disabilities, and parents/family), life transitions in the past year, and shared activities/involvement with their sibling with disabilities. Additional quantitative questionnaires used were the Positive Affect Index (1973) of relationship quality and Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CES-D, 1977). The researchers used descriptive statistical procedures to find the standard deviation, mean, and median of each section results. Additionally, they used analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) and Wilk’s lambda.
I believe Hodapp and Urbano had the clearer research design. They had several Level 2 / 3 headings throughout their paper to distinguish between the different sections and subtopics of their methods and results. This made it easier to understand what I was reading and how they separated and categorized their experiment. However, both research papers were written very similarly and provided a good amount of data in the format of tables and graphs. I think I’ll use Hodapp and Urbano’s research paper as an example of the format I want to follow. I want to distinguish between the subtopics of my paper and make it as easy to understand as possible.
This assignment of comparing two different papers gave me insight into the importance of research paper formatting; it also influenced my paper's format. All academic research papers include the basic sections of Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Results, and Discussion. However, papers differ on how they subsection or utilize Level 2 or 3 headings throughout their paper. I enjoyed how Hodapp and Urbano broke down each section and provided multiple headings, which made it clear to the reader exactly what they were reading. Additionally, reviewing the criteria of strong research questions was important in analyzing how my own research question compared to published studies. I found my question to be just as strong as the questions/hypotheses established by Macks & Reeve and Hodapp & Urbano.
The only revision I did for this assignment was making it website-friendly by changing the "Evaluating Research Designs" chart into paragraph format.
Hodapp, R. M., & Urbano, R. C. (2007). Adult siblings of individuals with Down syndrome versus with autism: findings from a large-scale US survey. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51 (12), 1018–1029. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2007.00994.x
Macks, R. J., & Reeve, R. E. (2007). The adjustment of non-disabled siblings of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37 (6), 1060–1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0249-0
McCombes, S. (16 April 2019). Developing strong research questions. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-questions/