Rereading with a Critical Eye

At this point in my research, I have read a significant number of articles and studies for my literature review-some good and some not so good. Also, when I get stuck in the writing process, distracted or just need a break, I look up more articles and studies to add to my collection. The paper piles on my dining room table have now extended to piles on the floor along the wall not to mention the piles on my kitchen table-too much information.

The study by Werts, Lambert & Carpenter (2009), What Special Education Directors Say About RTI, that I reread this week with a more critical eye, is a qualitative study using e-mail surveys. I think this was a good study overall with information clearly organized. The introduction gives a full background on the history of RTI and an operational definition of the topic in the first sentence. The authors state, “…the lack of consensus on many important issues related to RTI, we conducted a short online survey…” This was an effective alternative to writing “The purpose of this study…”

The research questions were well written to illicit the information needed from a survey. Tables in the study gave a graphic representation of the study. Table 1 included the survey questions and percentages of responses and table 2 gave the demographic information for the respondents and were added to the results section of the study.

The discussion section is clearly written with several interesting conclusions drawn from the data. Limitations of the study are discussed and include areas that I thought about as I was reading the research. Bias, survey return rate, self-selected representation were also discussed. Werts et al. (2009) found the validity a concern due to the nature of having the data collected through a survey format. The survey was only sent to one state, and the “…return rate of usable questionnaires was less than 50%.” Werts et al. (2009) also stated that the data was self-reported but because the questions asked for opinions, there was “less propensity for making themselves ‘look better’ because of practices they may or may not want to admit.” The authors also noted that since the state department officials trained the special education directors, this might have had an influence on the participants’ perception of the process.

Creswell (2007) discusses validation strategies and recommends that qualitative researchers use at least two of them in a given study (p. 207-209). This study included rich, thick descriptions, external audits and triangulation.

Under the Procedures section in this study, the questionnaire was developed through a systematic process of reviews. A team of volunteers consisting of professionals working and teaching in a university department included: a special education teacher, a principal, a special education director, two professors in special education, and an adjunct professor in the special education department. These volunteers reviewed the preliminary draft of the survey and were asked to suggest additional items, recommend deletion of items and make revisions in the wording of items that yielded a second survey that was then given back to the same team for feedback. A final draft was then written by the authors and used in this study (Werts et al., 2009).

Under the Data Analysis section, “analytical rigor was attained by having a third investigator independently review the tabular data and written responses. Any areas of ambiguity or disagreement were marked and discussed by the team until consensus was reached (Werts et al., 2009).

I thought this study added to the understanding of RTI from the perspective of a particular group (special education directors) in one state (North Carolina) and it would be interesting to compare these results with the results of another state like Connecticut.

Werts, M. G., Lambert, M. & Carpenter, E. (2009). What special education directors say about RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 245-254.