the introduction does not do a good job of clearly explaining to the reader why the research question is important. the reader is left unsure if the argument is that they should be longer, or that they are currently long enough. there are too many high-level statements which lack detail and though these statements are often backed up by a reference, it is unclear as to the extent to which the cited paper addressed the specific issue discussed. sometimes the language is too indirect, which leaves the reader needing to infer what it is you are actually trying to say. be more specific/explicit and ensure that the reader cannot misinterpret your meaning.
what then follows through the methods section and the analysis section is unfortunately almost completely incoherent. there is no structure, no logic, no consistency in what is being described. in one sentence you briefly mention a speech test which is never discussed again, you talk about playing instruments and rehearsal rooms, you also talk about applying EEG electrodes but we are not told what stimuli are played, what responses are recorded or why. The main analysis seems to be recording how long people were sat in the waiting room and seeing whether this has an effect on thresholds at 3-6 kHz, which unfortunately makes no sense at all.
The question was asking you to explore whether the appointment time in audiology should be variable as a function of age. so for a 40 year old coming to audiology for the first time, do they need a shorter appointment than older people. do older people need more time with the audiologist either due to a lack of understanding, having more questions or having more complex needs. at the very least, we surely need to measure the length of a number of audiology appointments and consider which aspects of the appointment take what time and if this is different across different ages.
I’m afraid the writing is so confused it reads as though experimental design choices have been taken from different papers, on different topics with different aims and then muddled together. there is no evidence that any learning objecti)ves have been achieved with regards to research design and statistics.
On a positive note, the ethical considerations do appear to be appropriate.
Moderator:
The introduction is difficult to follow. There is no logical narrative and it does not help to set the scene for the reader. Why would we need longer appointment times for older adults? Who benefits from this? What are the possible negatives of longer appointments? What research has been done on this topic previously? Some of the literature reviewed seemed irrelevant and completely out of place. It also seems to portray older adults as forgetful and incapable of looking after their hearing, which is mostly untrue..
The point of the methods section is to indicate what you did and why you did it with sufficient detail to enable the reader to go off and repeat this test for themselves. At the moment it is completely unclear what the researcher is proposing to do here. Where did the EEG test come from? I thought they were evaluating subjective experiences of appointment times? What are the questionnaires that you refer to? It’s almost as if two completely unrelated studies have been put together here.
The plan of analysis is completely unclear. What is your main outcome variable? Why are you looking at hearing thresholds? Why does musical experience come into it? Are you doing t-tests or an ANOVA? How will a t-test reveal whether older participants require longer appointments? What is the control group?! This is turn makes it very difficult to understand how you would interpret the results.
The ethical considerations are appropriate, but perhaps a little generic. Are there any considerations that are more specific to your research design?
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|