week 9 dq 2

Quantitative and Qualitative (Karasz, & Singelis, 2009).

Define quantitative; where the emphasis is on the amount of numbers assessed, not on the quality of the samples taken.

Qualitative; where the parameters of the statistical analysis is refined and specific. The numbers gathered are well understood and fit into the equation with precision.

The benefits of quantitative research is the results are a wide array of whatever is under examination. Example the IQ tests are based on population wide results (Krasileva, Sanders, & Bal, 2017). However, the results are specific to separating out an agrarian culture into the following categories. Exactly what jobs will each person who takes the test be good at. It has to ignore a huge amount of details and behavior patterns to work. The emphasis of a Quantitative study is a larger aspect of the subject under investigation, but it sacrifices details which are important.

On the other hand, a qualitative study can be defined as attempting to understand the differences in people on the spectrum. What exactly are the divisions between those who have behavior patterns which can be identified as Neuro A Typical (Enoch, & Dixon, 2019). In the present, science and the fields that study the brain/cognition are still struggling to understand what Neuro A Typical actually is. Every new test is a different aspect of trying to create tests which will actually refine and define the concepts of what Neuro A Typical actually is. It has become clear in the last two decades that Neuro A Typical is not just Autism and Asperger’s. There are a group of people on the Neuro A Typical spectrum that have few if any Autism and Asperger attributes but are still on the spectrum. The more the tests are refined, the questions become more and more specific, and the results create a further not that well understandable conclusions. The more the tools of Qualitative are used.

The disadvantages of quantitative are it is a huge net which ignores a huge amount of detail to gather up just raw data. Most of the time the huge net misses details that could change the entire function and structure of the test parameters. But that is ok since it is about finding species wide information.

The disadvantage of qualitative are that it is far too easy to miss key details if the perspective of the test giver is too bias towards their own personal stuff. Example if you examine the sketches and life work of Leonardo Da Vinci in a qualitative but wrong perspective way, you will miss the facts that 50 of his inventions are the foundation for space flight (Palma, Pingi, Siotto, Bellucci, Guidi, G., & Scopigno, 2019). Everyone for the last half millennia have missed those details. They get so focused on the quantitative and the wrong qualitative ideas they miss obvious facts.

Enoch, M. R., & Dixon, M. R. (2019). Neuro-typical children outcomes from an acceptance and commitment therapy summer camp. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(2), 343–352. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00319-0

Karasz, A., & Singelis, T. M. (2009). Qualitative and mixed methods research in cross-cultural psychology: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(6), 909–916.

Krasileva, K. E., Sanders, S. J., & Bal, V. H. (2017). Peabody picture vocabulary test: Proxy for verbal IQ in genetic studies of autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 47(4), 1073–1085. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3030-7

Palma, G., Pingi, P., Siotto, E., Bellucci, R., Guidi, G., & Scopigno, R. (2019). Deformation analysis of Leonardo da Vinci’s “Adorazione dei Magi” through temporal unrelated 3D digitization. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 38, 174–185. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.11.001