1 RUNNING HEAD: Lin Article Critique Part 2

Lin Article Critique Part 2 Marcia W. Pratt Liberty University

Lin Article Critique Part 2

Critique of Population Sampling

Lin, Enright, Krahn, Mack, and Baskin (2004) conducted a study on whether forgiveness therapy has an effect on anger, mood, and vulnerability. The research was conducted on fortythree substance and alcohol dependent clients in an inpatient facility. Initially, the populations chosen for the study were not randomly selected. However, the forty clients were split randomly into two treatment groups, twenty participants were placed in each subgroup. Moreover, because the study was intended for a specific population experiencing similar issues the generalization was low. Pyrzak (2008) suggest that the number of participants can be that generalizing would not be sufficient. Additionally, the response rate was not low because only three of the fortythree participants were not accepted based on the results of the Enright Forgiveness Inventory (Enright Fitzgibbons, 2000) and the Speilberger State-Trait Anger Expression Scale (Lin, Enright., Baskin., 2004). Furthermore, the dropout rate was the same for both groups which resulted in a 35% completion rate ( Lin et al, 2004) for the study, which is in normal range for similar studies. At the conclusion of the study, it was noted the sample size was more than sufficient to detect meaningful statistical differences, which is a major goal of all treatment studies (Lin et al., 2004). This is an indication that a generalization was drawn from the target group of forty three .residential drug rehabilitation clients, and was not drawn from a diverse group. The participants were very similar on many variables, namely mental disorders, history of chronic disease, chronic disease, a poor response to treatment and relapse, legal issues related to addiction , treatment and relapse, legal issues related to addiction and little motivation to change (Lin, et al.)

Lin Article Critique Part 2 Procedures Critique Forty three clients selected for the study were chosen based on specific criteria set by the researchers; therefore the initial choice of who would participate was not random. However; the clients were randomly assigned to two treatment groups, they were randomly assigned to FT or ADC (Linn et al., 2004). The descriptions of the treatments used in this study have been thoroughly and sufficiently explained in detail. Specifically, alcohol and drug counseling (ADC) is described by the researchers as a common treat plan for substance abuse. The researchers provide more descriptive detail about forgiveness therapy because its effectiveness is being measured and observed. Subsequently, the treatments were given by a therapist with twenty plus years of experience in therapeutic counseling, additionally they were trained in both FT and AD therapy. The therapy sessions were monitored by taping, and a team member arbitrarily choosing the tapings for review of consistency between expected and delivered treatments (Linn, et al., 2004). Moreover, the same therapist conducted all of the therapy sessions to eliminate the personal effect as a factor. Also, the therapist used the same methods in both types of treatment groups. The setting for the study was a somewhat natural setting because it did not take place in a lab, bu it took place within the current living environment of the rehabilitation residential facility. Furthermore, the researcher considered attrition in this study, given the high levels of mobility and chaos that characterize the lives of this client population, this dropout rate is not unusual. However, the sample size was more than sufficient to detect meaningful statistical differences, a major goal of al treatment studies (Linn et. al., 2004).

Lin Article Critique Part 2 Critique of Instrumentation The evaluating instruments for the research did not include actual items in the research, but provided a detailed description of each instrument. Also, the researchers provided past research as evidence to support the validity of each assessment instrument. Specialized formatting and detail was used when the assessments were given in random order and the response format was provided. The three dispositions of chronic addiction with relapse, psychiatric diagnoses, poor response to treatment with low motivation to change, and legal issues dealing with substance abuse (Linn et al., 2004) were restrictions placed on the researcher choice of participants initially. The EFI, BDI-II, CSEI, STAI, SSTAEI and vulnerability to drug use scale were used to collect and statistically analyze the data for each participant (Linn et al., 2004). They provide evidence that multiple methods to collect information on each variable can be used. Thoroughly researched information and credible sources were provided by the researchers. Consequently, there is some reason of doubt that information obtained from patients could have been influenced by social desirability or response style biases (Linn et at., 2004) because the self report assessments were not given anonymously. Because all patients were exposed to the same therapist as a constant with a specific time and time limit, which resulted in very little deviation from the expected schedule, this supports the opinion that the proper steps were taken to avoid the instrumentation influencing any overt behaviors.

Lin Article Critique Part 2

References Lin, W., Mack,D., Enright, Krahn & Baskin Effects of forgiveness therapy on anger, mood, anger and vulnerability to substance use among inpatient substance dependent clients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(6), p. 1114-1121 Pyrczak, F. (2008). Evaluating research in academic journals. Glendale, California: Pyrczak publishing.