Form for Summarizing and Evaluating Research Articles Essay

In terms of the social functioning of drug users, Kandel referred to numerous studies that have examined the effect of drug use on social functioning in adolescents and young adults. The author was interested in further examining this topic as it pertains to these individuals’ transitioning into adulthood. Previous studies cited by the author have addressed this topic from the standpoint of how marijuana use affects the age of marriage, but no previous study has looked at child-bearing practices. The author hypothesized that the delinquent behavior found in adolescent drug-users will similarly be found in drug-using parents. In terms of parenting style, Kandel cited studies on three widely-recognized parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive) and studies that examine child-bearing practices of drug users with data collected from clinical settings. The author questioned whether this data will be replicated by studies with general population samples. Evaluation: The literature review of the social functioning of drug users is thorough, and the research questions and hypotheses (both of which are clearly stated) are clearly justified by the literature review. Additionally, the section of literature review devoted to studies of parenting style and drug use is valuable as it cites studies that are more closely related to my own research interests. I question the author’s use of a three-tiered description of parenting style as a four-tiered model (authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful) is more commonly used. Methods: Kandel collected the data from 1,277 people (ages 28-29) she has been following since 1971 (and thus she has amassed considerable information on the history of their drug use). Data was obtained from two-hour long personal interviews with the subjects. Questions were asked about parenting style in relation to the oldest child in their care and about the history of use of 12 different drug classes. Questions about children’s behavior and parenting issues were taken from previously issued questionnaires and not designed specifically for this study. Many of the questions about drug use were also taken from previously issued studies. Evaluation: The large sample size and the large body of information about the subjects’ drug use lend credibility to the study. The results of the study, however, might be skewed as the only people interviewed were the parents. As the parents have a history of drug use, and abuse, I would not implicitly trust all of their responses about parenting style and the behavior of their children. It would have been helpful if, for instance, teachers were interviewed about the behavior of the children implicated in the study. It would also have been appreciated if the author had discussed why the pre-existing questionnaires were chosen. Were these particular questionnaires ones with a proven track-record of statistically reliable results? Are they the most-widely used in the field? Are there any shortcomings of these questionnaires? Results: The study found that the strongest associations between childrearing patterns and child behavior are between parent discipline and child aggression and between parental closeness and child attachment to the parent. The data is broken down by gender of parent, and different results were found for maternal and paternal parenting styles for many of the child behavior patterns. Then, Kandel looked at the data to see patterns between drug involvement and marital/parenting status. Drug users (both current and former) are more likely to be single with no children. Next, she examined the relationship between drug involvement and parenting style and found â€Å"very few statistically significant relationships† (p. 189). Finally, she looked for associations between drug use and the children’s behavior, finding that maternal drug use is strongly associated with problems controlling children. Evaluation: Though the tables displaying the statistical analysis of the results provide the number of respondents who fall into the categories being discussed, the text itself contains none of these numbers. For instance, nowhere in the text does the author give the number of drug using mothers. From one of the tables, I found this number to be 166 (a very small sample given the number of participants in the study). Discussion and Conclusions: Kandel was quick to note the limitations of this study and the need for further research to fill these limitations. She also positioned this study and its findings within the framework of previous studies and remarked on the larger implications of her study. Evaluation: The implications of this study can be tied directly to my own research project. Kandel notes that â€Å"conduct problems in childhood and early adolescence are among the most important precursors of adolescent drug involvement† (p. 192). Overall Assessment of Quality: This is, in general, an average article. The conclusions came directly from the results, the methodology met the demands of the research question, and the research question grew out of the literature review. However, I have some concerns about the discussion of parenting style (only three types of parenting are considered), the unquestioned use of pre-existing questionnaires, and the lack of acknowledgment of ethical issues. Complete Reference: Adalbjarnardottir, S. & Hafsteinsson, L. G. (2001). Adolescents’ Perceived Parenting Styles and their Substance Use: Concurrent and Longitudinal Analyses. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11 (4), 401-423. Abstract: The concise abstract provides details on the study, the participants, the questions that were asked, the variables, and the findings. This abstract indicates that this article is essential to my research. Evaluation: The abstract is absolutely extraordinary in the amount of detail that is provided in so few words. Introduction: This study developed from previous research in which it was suggested, but not proven, that interpersonal processes (such as parental and peer factors) are effective predictors of substance use. Evaluation: The introduction’s assertion for the necessity of this research is convincing. Literature Review: The authors presented a detailed review of the literature on the following topics: family socialization and tobacco and alcohol consumption, parenting style, and the discrimination of licit and illicit drugs in studies of this nature. They noted an important oversight in previous research: most studies of adolescent substance abuse have focused on single dimensions of parenting style (some studies focus on support, some on control, etc. ). In order to correct this lapse, the authors used Lamborn’s four-fold typology of parenting style. The distinction between licit and illicit drugs is germane to this study as cultural perceptions of licit and illicit drug use are omnipresent in Icelandic culture. The three hypotheses of this study are very clearly expressed: â€Å"adolescents from authoritative families would report lower levels of licit drug use,† â€Å"adolescents from neglectful families would report higher levels of licit drug use,† and â€Å"adolescents from neglectful families would report higher use of illicit drugs† (pp. 405-406). Evaluation: The authors clearly point out areas in which previous research is valuable and areas in which it can be improved upon. Their analyses of prior studies provide clear justification for their own study. The clear development of the research questions and hypotheses from the literature review is reflected in the organization of the article: the introduction and literature review are combined into one section. Methods: An initial sample of 1,293 14-year old students (all native Icelanders, all Lutheran, and all speaking Icelandic as a first language) participated in the study at base-line. 928 of these students participated in a follow-up session three years later. Of these students, 347 could be classified into one of the four family types. These 347 students form the nucleus of the study. The authors chose these 347 students in order to compare the results of the concurrent and longitudinal analyses. Because the authors wanted to ensure that neglectful families were represented in their study, they used passive consent procedures (as opposed to active consent). The students filled in the self-report questionnaire during school hours. The questions asked about cigarette smoking, alcohol use, illicit drug use, parental and peer substance use, socioeconomic status, and parenting styles. The authors used logistic regression analyses to determine whether parenting style (as perceived at age 14) presented a significant risk factor for substance use at the time of the baseline screening as well as three years later. The following variables were considered: gender, socioeconomic status (later considered insignificant), smoking at age 14, drinking at age 14, smoking of parents, drinking of parents, smoking of peers, drinking of peers, parenting style, daily smoking at 17, heavy drinking at 17, and illicit substance abuse. Evaluation: The discussion of methodology is thorough, and the study is well-designed to answer the research questions. The authors gave examples of the types of questions that were asked as well as the choices of answers. The variables are clearly described and defined, and the description of the measurement processes is clear. The authors were quick to answer any potential ethical questions that might arise: they noted that the students were not paid for the study, and they provided a rationale for their use of passive consent procedures. One concern I have is that the authors only considered hashish and amphetamines in their questions about illicit drug use; they did not consider other types of illicit drugs or misuse of prescription medications. Results: The authors used both descriptive data analysis as well as inferential data analysis. In their attrition analysis, the authors found that students who perceived their parents as neglectful were more likely to drop out of the study. The authors cautioned that this might have somewhat skewed the results of their study. The authors found that parenting styles, gender, and peer smoking were indicators of smoking at age 14. Smoking at 14 and parental smoking were the sole indicators of daily smoking at 17. Parenting style and peer drinking were predictive of drinking at 14. Parenting style, peer drinking, and drinking at 14 were associated with heavy drinking at 17. Parenting style, smoking at 14/17, drinking at 14/17, and gender were associated with illicit drug use. Evaluation: The descriptive analysis clearly summarizes the participants and variables. The statistical analyses are appropriate to the research questions and hypotheses. However, as the authors noted, there is a lack of data about 17-year old students with neglectful parents. Discussion and Conclusions: The authors detected a general relation, as expected, between parenting styles and adolescent substance use. Their results support previous research which had suggested that adolescents with authoritative parents were less likely to use substances such as tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs. In some respects, the results of this study differ from previous European and American studies, a fact which led the authors to question the extent to which cultural differences affect adolescent drug use. The authors were careful to note and discuss three limitations of their study: the self-report measures, the method used to assess parenting style, and the attrition rate. Evaluation: One weakness of the discussion section is that the authors do not identify many ways in which this study opens the door to future research. Overall Assessment of Quality: This is a high-quality article that directly bears on the subject of my own research project. The primary strength of this article lies in how well-organized the study was, from the original research questions to the conclusions. The authors noted the limitations, and potential weaknesses, of the study, but their accounting for these factors is satisfactory. My primary concern with the study is that the authors did not draw enough distinction between the types of illicit drug use. This is an area that I will consider in my own study.