Introduction The following investigation examines the methodology and results of two studies looking at adverse childhood events (ACE), also referred to as childhood stressors, and their potential association to later alcohol use problems. This article will also include further investigation into the design quality and ensuing level of validity found in the studies. Sher, Gershuny, Peterson, and Raskin (1997) present their findings in “The Role of Childhood Stressors in the Intergenerational Transmission of Alcohol Use Disorders,” subsequently referred to as ‘Study A’ for this article. The results of “Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults” by Felitti, et al. is subsequently
…show more content…
Both Study A and B are epidemiological correlation studies, as with all correlational studies, the results can only be used to show the degree to which the events (ACE and alcoholism) vary with each other. Correlational studies describe the relationship between two variables, they do not explain it. Such studies can not be used to infer any causal information. From this, we derive that although Study A and B both show a positive correlation between the presence of ACE and later alcoholism, we can not assume that the ACE were the cause of the individual later developing an alcohol use …show more content…
To select their participants, both study A and B used larger governing bodies: a university and a health clinic, respectively. Although this increases convenience for the researchers, it also introduces numerous confounding variables and limits the population which the results can later be generalized. For both studies, they narrow their scope geographically by drawing from only one location. Because Study A used only university students, thereby decreasing the scope of their study by (1) eliminating representation from those with lower educational levels, and (2) lacking representation from all age groups. Since Study B selected its participants from a medical clinic, most, if not all, of their participants had some sort of health condition that recently triggered them to seek medical attention. All of the previously mentioned conditions may increase bias in survey
Both Study A and B are epidemiological correlation studies, as with all correlational studies, the results can only be used to show the degree to which the events (ACE and alcoholism) vary with each other. Correlational studies describe the relationship between two variables, they do not explain it. Such studies can not be used to infer any causal information. From this, we derive that although Study A and B both show a positive correlation between the presence of ACE and later alcoholism, we can not assume that the ACE were the cause of the individual later developing an alcohol use …show more content…
To select their participants, both study A and B used larger governing bodies: a university and a health clinic, respectively. Although this increases convenience for the researchers, it also introduces numerous confounding variables and limits the population which the results can later be generalized. For both studies, they narrow their scope geographically by drawing from only one location. Because Study A used only university students, thereby decreasing the scope of their study by (1) eliminating representation from those with lower educational levels, and (2) lacking representation from all age groups. Since Study B selected its participants from a medical clinic, most, if not all, of their participants had some sort of health condition that recently triggered them to seek medical attention. All of the previously mentioned conditions may increase bias in survey