The research was conducted by Lake Research Partners and American Viewpoint. 1,200 adults age 45+ were surveyed nationwide, with an oversample of 250 adults ages 45-60 who are care providers to an elder family member. The survey was conducted by phone April 7-14, 2010 and stratified by gender and geographically to reflect the population. The margin of error for the base was +/- 2.8% and +/- 4.4% for the oversample.

VoA used pie charts and bar graphs to represent the numerals and percentages of those surveyed with their responses. The report states that "a woman can expect to spend 18 years caring for a parent" but none of the graphics displayed prove such a claim, including the number of years or gender of care provider. I also have a problem with the limited, close-endedness of the questions. Participants were given the options "yes" or "no" and "not likely", "likely/somewhat likely", and "don't know". There is not enough of a variation in response options and VoA consistently refers to participants of specific examples as "these people", which is not clear enough for such a study needing to be exact. A finding VoA claims to have found is that "most common types of assistance include housework and cooking...medical care, talking with doctors, transportation, and daily activities such as bathing, eating, and getting dressed", however there was no question or poll reported to ask about such duties. Even if people were polled, were they current caregivers or expected caregivers? Whom are they providing care for and what are the disabilities of him/her that require individual care? How many people were polled? Were the questions free response or multiple choice? There are too many variables that a claim cannot be made without more specific findings.

I discovered this study online at ABC News/Washington Post. The findings were summarized and conclusions were drawn based on the questionnaire and in-person in-depth interviews. 2,086 nannies, housecleaners, and caregivers from 14 nationwide metropolitan areas responded to a standardized set of questions via landline and cell phone interviews. 190 domestic workers from 34 various scholarly organizations and worker alliances drafted and guided the research process while multiple piloted the 29 semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Translators and interpreters had to be used as nine different languages were spoken by the participants, as there were 71 different countries of origin. The study spanned from June 2011 to to February 2012 and participants were offered $20 as incentive to complete the 45-60 minute survey.

Here is a demographics chart of the domestic workers:

The study included questions about pay rates, benefits, and their impact on workers and their families; employment arrangements and employers' compliance with employment agreements; workplace conditions, on-the-job inquiries, and access to healthcare; and abuse at work and the ability to remedy substandard conditions.

Benefits and contributions to validity are as follows: the sample size was large (almost double the national acceptability rate), the drafting and revision processes and credibility of those involved, the quality and volume of questions asked, the structure and layout in which responses were formulated (i.e. focus groups), and the variety of work amongst domestic workers, leading to generalizability.

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1144a3FiscalCliff.pdf

The ABC News/Washington Post poll reveals that 73% of Democrats are in favor of raising taxes on the rich population making $250,000+, 63% Independents, and only 39% of Republicans. Fiscally conservative Republican views must be taken into consideration and also voter/participant incomes. Opposition to limiting tax deductions peaks at 58% among $100,000+ income earners versus 47% of those earning less than $50,000.

Participants were also asked about "strong" opinions versus general likes and dislikes and the topic of Medicare coverage was also covered. Tax views depend greatly on ideological views, whereas Medicare opinions are similar across the political board and instead relates to age, with 78% of adults between the ages of 50 and 64 opposing the raise of Medicare eligibility age.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by Langer Research Associates of NY. 1,016 random adults were polled by landline and cell phone nationwide post-election from November 21st to 25th, 2012. The sampling error is 3.5 points.

Some benefits of the research study are the pre and post-tests that were done of all children in both groups of healthy children and obese children. The controlled variable was the showing of the 120 logos to the ten children and the pre and post-testing by MRI scans.

The downfalls of the study are the small-sized participant pool, the limited age range of participants, and the fact that television ads were not actually used in the study. Without scanning the children's brains whilst watching the ads and instead showing them food brand logos is slightly irrelevant and unsupportive of the outcomes the scientists were originally seeking. The logos prove recognition but not significance, and with that, obese children who consume more food are more likely to recognize a variety of logos as opposed to normal weight children.

"Obese kids showed greater activation in the rewards and pleasure centers of the brain, which lit up when they saw the food logos, compared with when they saw non-food logos. Healthy weight kids on the other hand also showed signs of brain activation when shown the food labels, but in brain's self-control centers. Healthy weight children were also more likely to report greater self-control when surveyed after, compared with the obese children."

"In the 1950s and '60s, the favorite vegetable of children in the United States was spinach. That was because of Popeye." This is a statement from the article but no proof that consumption of spinach was directly caused by the popularity of Popeye, and could have merely been a coincidence. The 50s and 60s also had fewer junk food brands and higher consumption of vegetables that can be perhaps be credited to non-working mothers that cooked well-balanced meals for their children.

The above survey was conducted about twice per month from January 26, 2009 to October 29, 2012 by Fox News under the direction of Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw & Company Research. President Obama's job approval rate is ranked in comparison to former President George W. Bush. The poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with approximately 900 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide. The sampling error is +/- three percent points with minor weights applied to age, race, and gender variables but no political party affiliation variable.

This screenshot compares Republican opinion to overall opinion. As of the latest October poll, Republican approval rate is at an (almost) all-time low with 90%, whereas Democratic approval is at 91%, clearly demonstrating very strong oppositional views of the Democratic President. Independent approval rate as of October was split at 42% and 52% disapproval.

The poll graphic is undated, so viewers must assume the article has not been updated since the recent presidential election, at a time when Presidential approval may fluctuate greatly and not represent everyday views. The chart is purely visual without any writing or explanation and the sample size, though random, is not necessarily reliable, as it is not an acceptable participation pool with fewer than 1,200 participants. Phone interviews also eliminate some of the population of registered voters that do not have homes with landlines or mobile phones, which eliminates a significant opinion that does indeed matter when it comes to 'overal approval', making the poll ungeneralizable.

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/youtube_news

Through PRSA, I discovered a Pew Research study about the relationship between viral news searches and YouTube. Digital/virtual journalism is accessible worldwide and available in real time, as well as providing a dialogue platform for worldwide communication of views and opinions, and links to personal footage expanding on the event(s) and issue(s). Internet users are incorporating opinion into news sharing as well as journalism incorporating viewer activity, creating viral attention.

The Pew Center examined fifteen months' worth of the world's most popular news videos on YouTube (January 2011-March 2012). About 260 videos resulted by identifying and tracking the five most-viewed videos each week according to YouTube's 'News and Politics' channel. Pew analyzed the nature of the videos, the topics viewed most often, and the producers and posters of them.

The key findings to Pew's study were that the most popular videos were of natural disasters and political upheaval with intense visuals, entertaining ephemeral videos are more popular than information-based videos, citizens supply and produce the most footage, most viral videos contain both raw and edited footage and are fairly subjective, not containing individual personalities, and of course, that YouTube videos are briefer, generally lasting about two minutes in length, though YouTube video lengths vary greatly depending on the poster and topic.

In conclusion, people tend to search YouTube for videos covering current news due to its real-time updates and functionality. People tend to look for brief, concise news on the web, where we spend a lot of time during the day for both personal and work purposes (71% of Americans have used YouTube). Viewers also prefer platforms in which they determine their news agenda and content consumption without advertisements and biased information, as YouTube (though owned by Google) is not sponsored like some stations such as Fox. As to whether YouTube as a legitimate journalistic source, that is still unconfirmed due to lack of regulations, ethics, and copyright violations. YouTube is looking to a future with partnerships with Reuters and the like, which I am curious to see. This is the era of technology and it will only continue to progress with big players such as YouTube.

Ohio State University's division of Psychology recently published study findings in its 'Research and Innovation Communications' and journal 'Intelligence', saying that child prodigies have the commonality of autism. The study was conducted by an associate Psychology professor at the University and a Yale student/neurological non-profit organization Founder.

Three of the eight studied had autism and half had a family member OR first- OR second-degree relative with an autism diagnosis, though it is not specified how many of those with an autistic relative also had autism or if it is another half IN ADDITION to the diagnosed three. The study also does not specify the severity of autism in each child.

One group of eight was controlled, the other of 174 adults randomly contacted by mail not. All "child prodigies" were chosen via internet, television specials, and referrals. The control group contained one art prodigy, one math prodigy, four musical prodigies, one music/gourmet cooking prodigy, and one music/art prodigy. Six were males and the remaining two were females. It appears as though "child prodigy" in this case is defined as "at least younger than 18 years, who is performing at the level of a highly trained adult in a very demanding field of endeavour" (Wikipedia) and had elevated intelligence scores on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence test.

Each child was individually tested by researchers over the course of two or three days. In addition to the Stanford-Binet, researchers administered the Autism-Spectrum Quotient assessment. All eight tested were categorized in the top 1 percentile of the working memory sub-test.

The problematic issues with this study are the amount of control over the "autistic" group versus the huge lack of control over the randomly selected and mailed uncontrolled group. The ages were also not given of those tested (though assumedly all under 18) nor for those over 18, varying from probably 18+ to 100! The two groups qualify it as a valid study, however the large variety of control (loose to too confined) and ungiven information lead to skepticism and unreliability. Depending on the study layout, environment (in-home mailed flyer vs. interview room), and number and presence of researcher(s) possibly influencing the child prodigy.

The study still proves nothing more than its title; there are a few links between autism and child prodigous. They simply share similar traits at this point and cannot be considered proof until further and more extensive research is done and verified.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00125-012-2709-8

The above article was published by The New York Times recently about the correlation between low vitamin D levels and increase in risk of Type 1 diabetes. The aim was to prove the hypothesis that a deficiency of vitamin D results in Type 1 diabetes, specifically in the tested active-military personnel.

The study was not a random sample, as every participant was a military member and selected based on vitamin D levels, an assortment of low and high. Between 2002 and 2008, the 'nested case-control' study of 1000 subjects' blood samples were matched and analyzed. The following image explains and also verifies the reliability of the testing, as the serum reading dates were accurate across the board for all participants' samples (time-wise).

The results support the researchers' hypotheses though it cannot prove causation of diabetes by vitamin D deficiency. The results are measured and presented in numbers representing value to the discovered phenomena, giving the [high and low] number relativity to one another (i.e. 17-23 nanograms vs. 40+).

Totalcarscore.com did a survey via Facebook of 600+ people identifying themselves as Democrat/liberal or Republican/conservative asking what they drive. The respondents were allowed to select the type of car he/she drives. The following results were published were based on their identifying party and car selection then categorized into car type:

Primary findings show that 29% of Republicans/conservatives drive a pickup truck, 27% of Democrats/liberals drive compact cars. People in both parties agree they like SUVs and crossovers about equally with 20 percent for Republicans/conservatives vs. 18 percent for Democrats/liberals. Members of both parties dislike hybrid/alternative-fuel vehicles about the same. Hybrid/alternative-fuel vehicles came in last place for Democrats and second-to-last place for Republicans, just above the van/minivan segment. Still, with 6 percent market share among Democrats, the hybrid segment is more than twice as popular with them as it is with Republicans, who drive hybrids only 3 percent of the time.

Though this is just a summary of the article published on shopautoweek.com, the survey seems too simple (only 1 multiple choice question and the account member's 'Political View'). The independent variable is party affiliation and the dependent being car type. The survey does not reveal the ages of the respondents, the likelihood of actually going to the polls if he/she is indeed over 18, and excludes drivers without Facebook accounts. The selection could have been random, however it is not truly reliable as it is not an population but just a poll of a specific social media network's user. I do not know how the question was worded but the 'most members of both parties dislike parties' is a negative assumption, as they may not be disliked but rather not owned due to external factors such as cost, availability, practicality, size, etc.

The above image was an e-mail I received from Boynton asking for survey participation. In order to reduce [nonresponse] error, they explained the source, purpose, and brevity of the survey, provided incentive, notified me prior with no expiration date, and assured my anonymity and confidentiality.

It is obvious that her survey is intended to gather personal and political values and beliefs of University-associated females regarding abortion, healthcare, and sex. She did a good job on the survey layout and design (for the most part) concerning sensitive topics and personal, typically unshared information.

Beyond this, I had a few concerns with question design. A few examples:

I consider this question to be leading. It is assumed that the participant has been in a sexual or romantic relationship, which perhaps not all have. And is also sort-of irrelevant in cases of participants that haven't had a "relationship" recently or currently. What is considered "recent"? And what is considered a "relationship"?

The two follow-up questions here are unclear. Perhaps my screenshot should have covered the 25a-c questions to support my qualms, however, this section was unclear in that I did not know if the question about male and then female partners were just concerning the past 12 months. The questions varied from 3 months of activity to 12. They were a bit jumbled and confusing regarding the time span.

This multiple-choice nominal measurement is visually unclear to me (the category labels on top), as well as needs either a separate category or explanation box for someone like me; I learned about some of the topics from religious leaders but attended a private Catholic K-8. My teachers back then were considered religious leaders but only in my school, not the outside world, as they are not religious experts.

This question almost deterred me from completing the survey because I began to wonder if all survey questions would be so lengthy and wordy.

Questions about changing attitudes should have been created, too. I may have learned about such topics in a conservative, religious manner, but have changed due to external pressures since Eighth Grade.

This survey definitely contains external validity as field research. However, with topics so sensitive, the researcher must consider participants' personal awareness and level of admittance in the survey.

Concerning demographics, she asked:
-Age (fill in the blank)
-Gender (choose Male or Female)
-Zip code (fill in the blank)
-Occupation (fill in the blank)
-Race/Ethnicity (6 options and Other)
-Highest level of Ed. (choose GED, Some college, 2-year Associate's, 4-year Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral, or Professional)
-Household size (fill in the blank)

Then came more fill-in-the-blank questions about previous car ownership, car brand values, car technology, attitudes towards hybrid cars, then specific questions concerning Chevrolet and their hybrid Volt. She used a mixture of open-ended and multiple choice questions.

This seems as though it was intended to provide qualitative answers, though the questions were pretty broad and most questions were answered in three or fewer words. It is understandable that online it is impossible to provide follow-up/discussion questions for more qualitative data. This type of research was evaluative, summative, primary, quantitative, but somewhat humanistic. The content validity is strong but cannot be guaranteed valid because it is unpredictable and not approved by experts or panels as true.

My answers were descriptive, as her survey was Description goal-oriented. Participants provided her with my demographics and a list of descriptive words about my attitude and knowledge of the Chevy Volt and hybrid cars in general. It is "what?" research rather than "why?", though I am sure she will conduct follow-up research to answer the "why's" to participants' "what's".

We were not informed of the purpose of the survey, but having been told it would be simple, quick, and painless probably increased the likelihood of friend and acquaintances willingness to participate. With that said, there is probably public resistance, along with other negative aspects. Some downfalls to her research are the lack of in-depth questions, brevity of the survey, and lack of control. However, it was free to conduct with immediate delivery, rapid data processing. and could poll a large population (though not necessarily diverse or an ideal sample size or quality). It is a good method to begin research analysis.

We have a new study waiting for your participation. The study titled, "Thoughts and Feelings Toward Current Brands and Current Issues" (conducted by Whitney Walther and Dr. Heather LaMarre)" currently recruits 150 participants. This study involves two online surveys.

The online research study was conducted by a grad student/TA for a school/Senior project, though specific purposes nor motives were listed. It was a nonrepresentative study of convenience, using other SJMC students to whom she has easy access and knew would probably be willing to participate. The survey did not contain many open-ended questions and could be considered flawed due to nonverbal, impersonal communication, the fact that perhaps not all participants were 100% honest during testing, and there was no cause-effect correlation to produce completely accurate results, and though it was concepted as an external field study, it cannot be presumed to represent the "real world".

The benefits following the research could have led to qualitative findings or led to producing more qualitative questions for future surveys or experiments. This survey was implemented in this particular student's research because she wanted to describe levels of beliefs, awarenesses, perceptions, etc. and to draw comparisons. She was not aiming to make predictions or determine a cause to the effect, in which case a survey would have not been appropriate. I, too, would have conducted a survey in this scenario, in order to compile various findings and be able to make some sort of educational generalization.

Klein and colleagues recruited 29 postmenopausal non-obese women who were healthy.
--The fact that all participants were of a relationship doctors and healthcare professionals might be a problem, because chances are their friends and family are health conscious and take extra care of their bodies, not exactly the "average" American.
--The sample size was only 29, which is hard for me to really consider the results because 29 people is not enough to guarantee reliability. It is valid, however, at least amongst postmenopausal "healthy" women.
--There are perks for participants in medical studies usually. Though this is scientific research and the perks don't affect the outcome, it is important to release that information to avoid unethical implications.

--The study split the 29 women and did a comparison study, with one half taking a resveratrol supplement, which was equivalent to drinking 8 liters of red wine each day.

--The researchers tracked how the insulin controlled blood sugar, but as an uninformed reader, I have no way of knowing how scientific that tracking was and what medical tests were performed. However, the results of the fat, muscles, blood pressure, and cholesterol are valid because the results of this scientific study cannot really be disproved.

How many times a month do you eat pizza?
--The answers categorized participants into Males & Females and NW, Midwest, South, West). Nowhere did Zagat or HuffPost define the state/boundaries, which is necessary when grouping and generalizing the participants.

Pizza consumption during what meal?
--Dinner, Lunch, Late Night Snack, Breakfast. 'Late night' should just be written as 'Snack' because many people eat multiple small meals throughout the day, or add 'Midday snack' as an option.

They gave a list of the 9 pizza type favorites, 10 favorite toppings, 5 of the grossest, and 5 favorite fixins. With so many brands, and the fact that some pizzas (Chicago deep-dish, NY-style thin crust, etc.) are specific to a certain region or city influence participants. NY is known for pizza. Chances are Minnesota's 'NY-style' is different than the native.

Which are the grossest [toppings]?
--Were people given a list of toppings to choose from or was it an open-ended question?

Is it better to order by the pie or a slice?
--What exactly does 'better' imply? This question is ambiguous and not clear enough to a participant. People order by the pie if they are looking to save money and will save the leftovers, they may be hosting a party, they may be feeding an entire family one meal, etc. The answer is situational and the question does not address that, creating a lack of control.

How much did you spend on a slice? On a pie?
--Were participants given money by Zagat to buy and eat pizza from certain place? Or were the participants just giving prices that seemed logical. It is unlikely that pizza consumers remember the price of their food, down to the cent.

As a journalist, I would also like to know if any pizza companies were involved in the research process, which could sway the participants, the survey method(s), and researchers perhaps looking for certain answers. How the study was funded is an important factor, as is location, method, and approach to participants.

It is also not stated the sample size. Most answers are presented as percentages, which has little reliability until we know if the sample size was large enough and a well-representation of opinion. The sample size could have been 5,000 people across the nation or it could have been 100. It is important in this study to know how many people were surveyed, where, and their ages because urban, suburban, and rural areas are different pizza-wise. The attitude towards pizza varies among generations, as well. It is most likely younger people/students without time to cook or bake a pizza on his/her own. They could also be parents or someone hosting guests. Also, 'Late night snack' as an option to a question applies mostly to youth that stay up late studying or stop for pizza after bar close.