Methodological Limitations. Because of the small sample size and single-center recruitment, these results may be taken as a positive indication of experiences of these specific patient participants with the care team, but no broad conclusions may be drawn about the quality of care provision at the ALS Center or by multidisciplinary ALS management in general. While a majority of participants were happy with their care, the effects of selection/participation bias must not be overlooked. On average, patient participants were not experiencing severe symptoms of ALS as reported by the ALSFRS-R scores, which averaged 34.4 on a scale of 0 to 40 (higher score associated with more retained function) [1]. This is not to diminish the challenging lived experiences of the patients interviewed, but rather to say that those with greater progression may have additional explicit supportive and palliative care needs that are not represented by this study due to recruitment limitations. The recruitment method, interview methodology, and setting may have discouraged patients with lower ALSFRS-R scores and higher symptom burden from participating. The verbal interview may have been exclusionary, too difficult, or too time intensive for patients with respiratory insufficiency or non-verbal communication modalities. It is possible that a written list of open-ended prompts and written responses may have provided a more inclusive means for these patients, though a questionnaire would have removed the possibility of dialogue, follow up questions, notation of and response to non-verbal cues, and limited the interaction between participants in group settings. A “take-home” written response would likely have garnered more participants of varied progression and ALSFRS-R score, as the timing and duration of interview (occurring after long clinical appointments) were also deterrents to patients who were approached but decided not to participate. Some were too tired after their appointment, while others expressed concern about the amount of time required for the interview and subsequent effects on their commute home. The identification of potential patient participants by members of the clinic team did not seem to directly influence the pool of potential participants. However, it did seem that some patients understood the study to be concerned with quality assessment of specific practices at the clinic rather than academic in nature despite the patient information materials and discussions with interviewer KD. The a...
Methodological Limitations. Because the waiver was initially implemented over 20 years ago, a pre-post comparison is not appropriate, and analyses will be limited to a post-only approach. Using a post-only approach will limit causal inference. However, for several of the evaluation questions, a comparison group will be used. FPW program enrollees will be compared to women who are eligible for the FPW program but do not enroll. While this approach will improve causal inference, there is still the potential for unobserved confounding to bias results. All analyses will control for the demographic characteristics of the populations being compared to minimize potential bias. Additionally, measures of health status are not available for FPW enrollees, thus it is not possible to directly assess the impact of the FPW program on the health status of enrollees.
Methodological Limitations. There are two limitations to the methods employed in this paper. The first is that this topic is new and evolving, meaning that few comprehensive studies have been published on the transition processes informed by Gavi and Global Fund’s Eligibility, Transition, and Co-Financing Policies. Only 14 countries have become Fully Self- Financing countries with respect to Gavi’s support, and no countries have reached this status in Global Fund’s framework yet, meaning that there is also a small sample size of countries informing the data that is analyzed by these few studies. This reduces the generalizability of the conclusions as they are initial findings, and the reality may change as more data is collected and more research is done. The second major challenge is that much of the data needed is pulled from freely available data posted on a myriad of organizations’ websites. The fidelity of this data cannot be tested against any other dataset, as these are the only datasets that exist. There is the possibility that withheld information and information not found on the websites exists, and that it provides a different perspective or different values to what is currently available.
Methodological Limitations. This research design and data have many strengths; however, like all research, there are also limitations. Secondary data often presents researchers with certain limitations. The QLTE, while arguably one of the best sources of detailed data on school working conditions in Georgia, presented some obstacles. First, during data collection there was a technical error that prevented the identification of the respondent‘s school for three participating counties. Since my analysis necessitated connecting teachers to school variables, I had to omit these counties from my sample. Second, the survey did not collect information on teacher pay. Prior research shows that while pay is not the primary predictor of satisfaction, it is an important indicator (Ingersoll 2001). Including a control for teacher pay would have strengthened the model specification. However, since all of the teachers work in the same state, and they share a similar pay scale, I have reason to believe the inclusion of this variable would not significantly alter the findings. The qualitative design and data also presented some obstacles. First, I was concerned about the choice to interview teachers at school. I worried that teachers might be hesitant to discuss the job satisfaction, career plans, and working conditions while at work. However, I quickly learned that this was not a problem. Teachers freely discussed positive and negative attributes of their work. Lastly, the qualitative analysis is limited by the decision to exclude the administrator data. I collected interviews from six school administrators and three district administrators. The data produced during these interviews added an additional level of understanding to this dynamic process. Unfortunately, I had to make the difficult decision to save this analysis for later publication due to time factors. I am eager to pursue this analysis in my later work.
Methodological Limitations. This section provides detailed information on the limitations of the evaluation. This could include the design, the data sources or collection process, or analytic methods. The state should also identify any efforts to minimize the limitations. Additionally, this section should include any information about features of the demonstration that effectively present methodological constraints that the state would like CMS to take into consideration in its review.
Methodological Limitations. This section provides sufficient information for discerning the strengths and weaknesses of the study design, data sources/collection, and analyses.
Methodological Limitations. This study consists of eight interviews and recordings of four religious services within the span of a few months. The most significant limitation is the size of the sample. The size of the sample was limited by time, scheduling difficulties,67 and response rate. Of the ten students that opted in to the study, only eight responded to schedule an interview. Inclement weather delayed many of these interviews, which further limited the number or analytical rigor of interviews. Increasing the number and length of interviews and religious services would likely reveal novel insights about prayer. The respondents were from three different religious backgrounds, between the ages of nineteen and twenty-two, and, with one exception, from within the United States. The relative homogeneity of the sample limited examination of different philosophies of prayer. Future studies should avoid random sampling with such a small sample size. In a qualitative study, a wide variety of data is important to developing a complete understanding of the object of study. The backgrounds of individuals examined in this study were limited to students with Western notions of prayer and religion. Future research should identify individuals from non-Western backgrounds and cultures to provide unique perspectives on the concept of prayer. Importantly, this study limited the population to the Emory University community. Selecting such a community has important implications for the identities of those individuals who occupy it. The average Emory student is of a specific socio-economic, educational, and ideological background, 67In the Spring 2014 semester, Emory University closed on six days within the first month of classes. An Emory Wheel article chronicled the snow days: xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx/emory-community-keeps-cool-during-ice- storm/ which limits the efficacy of the data collected. Future studies should expand the population as wide as possible to increase the legitimacy of their results. Talking about the concept of prayer in isolation is difficult. Respondents are very forthcoming on relatively personal topics like their belief in God, their level of faith, and their religious backgrounds. However, narrowing down conversation to the idea of prayer proved more difficult than expected. The academic literature on the subject reflects this reluctance to separate the idea of prayer from the other connotative associations: God, religion, faith, afterlife, sin, etc. As always, the observ...
Methodological Limitations. While efforts were made to be thorough and systematic, certain methodological limitations naturally exist that will affect this thesis’s literature review and analysis.
Methodological Limitations. There are limitations regarding the methodological approach used for data collection (inventory) and analysis (mapping): ● Partners involved may not be familiar with the assessment criteria. Therefore, risk alleviation action included induction training followed by tailor made support as depicted during the training interaction (see deliverables 2.2. and 2.5); ● The very high degree of differentiation of the institutional practices, which will be the analysis subject, could create problems of classification and of assigning indicators ● The granularity of the data collection in relation to the disadvantaged groups may not be carefully observed when defining the governance practices, and the risk is to address them as a general category of “disadvantaged learners”; ● There is a risk of subjectivity in the case of self-assessment processes that cannot be ignored and that should be considered from the very beginning;
