Actually, that is not true. Questionnaires are more reliable than interviews because they are far more generic. Interviews can be more easily subjective.However, I am concerned to how the data was obtained. One professor that was sourced many times over does not interview the couples or the children but instead relies on questionnaires, a very poor research tool.
. Fifty same-sex partners (25 couples) have completed questionnaires evaluating various individual, marital, parental and social aspects associated to parenthood. Variance analysis of theses aspects have shown the effects of two factors that is, the type of mother (biological/non-biological) and the procreation mode (known/unknown genitor).
Too subjective. How one person reads body language is different than how others might. I've conducted research studies. Questionnaires are more reliable.One on one interviews would have provided far more reliable data because they can evaluate body language and see reactions to certain questions in real time.
Volunteers [I]can[I]negatively influence reliability, but not necessarily. Good point, though.Another author, again cited extensively relies only on volunteers which is not a proper sampling.
Existing research on children with lesbian parents is limited by reliance on volunteer or convenience samples.
Children with lesbian parents: a community study. [Dev Psychol. 2003] - PubMed result
Ummm...no, that is a study done by the authors themselves.Another author whose work is cited is itself citing others instead of doing the research themselves making it harder to track.
Been a while since I've looked at this study. You could be right about this one. I would not conduct research this way, but I need to take a harder look at it for validity's sake.In your second study we find this:
The study had been based on a convenience sample that had been assembled by word of mouth. It was therefore impossible to rule out the possibility that families who participated in the research
were especially well adjusted.
So we explore more into the article and once again we find the reliance on questionaires mailed to the households with no supervision when they were filled out, if the child was assisted or if another advocacy group assisted the families.
Materials were mailed to participating families, with instructions to complete them privately and return them in self-addressed stamped envelopes we provided.
This is not scientific research and it certainly does not explore the true psychological makeup of the child in these families because if this was out psychotherapy worked, no one would ever visit and therapist.
I do not agree. An interview is far more subjective than a well designed questionnaire.Again, I do concede if I based my findings solely on the evidence provided in the article and did not investigate the methods they use or the sampling they took, I would concede the conclusions you drew on earlier but now that I have done the research on the authors I find their sampling flawed based on volunteers no doubt eager to show how normal they are or based on questionnaires which are not sufficient to draw conclusions from since their body language and thought process cannot be explored.
It is common practice when conducting research to cite other studies both in the introduction and discussion sections. The studies themselves relied on the data they obtained.I asked you to support yourself with actual evidence which you did. I'm not denying that. But you would do well to dig into the articles and find out why they have to keep citing other studies to support the very conclusions you agree with and what methods they used to gather the data to support those conclusions.
You can't be content because someone cited an article that makes the facts infallible. You have to dig to find out what methods they used to draw their conclusions.
No, both of these practices are standard and in most cases produce far more reliable results. If one chooses random sampling for a study, one often gets unwilling participants who can create skewed data. Using volunteers and questionnaires do not, in general, create reliability problems. Questionnaires certainly not, and volunteers mostly not.Relying on volunteers and questionnaires for psychological evaluation is flat out lazy science and riddled with inaccuracies. Its the reason psychologists have offices and do not hand out questionnaires and base their findings on what someone wrote down.