Critical Review of Worry, Intolerance of Uncertainty, and Statistics Anxiety by William S., Amanda
Student’s Name
Institution
Tutor
Course
Date
Critical Review of Worry, Intolerance of Uncertainty, and Statistics Anxiety by William S., Amanda
Summary of the Article
The research was examining the correlation between intolerance of uncertainty, statistical anxiety, and worry. Statistical anxiety is a challenge for many students (undergraduate and graduate). The researcher responds to questions concerning the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty, worry, and statistics anxiety. The questions include: uncertainty intolerance is considerably correlated to worry in pretest to statistics students. Worry, in turn, is linked with six statistics anxiety types. Finally, the researcher answers the question that the student’s uncertainty intolerance, statistics anxiety, and worry level will be considerably decreased from pretest to posttest.
Research Methodology
The researcher studied the topic through a survey. Where he recruited respondents from the college of education in the large university of southwestern. The research was voluntary, where the researcher asked the students in three units of graduate-level introductory statistics course over the spring and fall semester of 2010 to volunteer. All the students decided to participate (Williams, 2013). The majority of the participants were white female students. Postgraduate (Master’s) students were more than half contributing to 53.6 percent. The author used the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12 to examine the level of uncertainty in participants. The twelve statements are gauged on a 5-point Likert scale varying from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The higher score in the Likert scale portrayed a higher intolerance level. The researcher used Penn State Worry Questionnaire to examine the tendency of participants to worry. Worry tendency was examined through six statements, with five undergoing reverse scores. All the six items are gauged on a 5-point Likert scale and then added to obtain a total worry score. Finally, he used Statistics Anxiety Rating Scale to assess the level of statistics anxiety. STRS comprised fifty-one elements gauged on a 5-point Likert scale (Williams, 2013). STRS contained 6 factors intended to examine anxiety in areas of interpretation anxiety, statistic worth, computation self-contest, fear of asking for help, fear of statistic teachers, class, and test anxiety.
Major Conclusions
The first conclusion derived from the study was that students’ intolerance of uncertainty contributed to worry in relation to generalized anxiety. Uncertainty intolerance contributing to 42 percent of the variance in worry scores. It was anticipated that uncertainty intolerance would lead to a significant amount of variance in the score of worry in terms of statistic anxiety due to the finding stability (Williams, 2013). With uncertainty intolerance level being considerably correlated to worry, and since worry is a major element in generalized anxiety, it was anticipated that worry that worry will then be considerably correlated to statistics anxiety. The researcher, therefore, concludes that it is correlated to certain statistics anxiety forms.
In-Depth Critique of the Article
The purpose of the study is clearly stated in the research making it easy to determine the intention of the investigator. The researcher wanted to study the correlation between intolerance of uncertainty, statistics anxiety, and worry in graduate students. He wanted to determine if the uncertainty intolerance level may result to worry. Investigator also wanted to examine if worry is the major characteristic of anxiety. If there is a relationship between intolerance of anxiety and worry, it is possible to expect the correlation between worry and statistics anxiety. The research problem is clearly indicated in the study. Investigator stated the specific k knowledge gap he wanted to address in his research. Research problems were portrayed by the clearly stated hypotheses.
The literature review in the article was perfect. First, it was logically organized. The literature review was organized around the research topic. All the literature in the article focused mostly on issues related to intolerance of uncertainty, worry, and anxiety. They described major causes and characteristics of worry and anxiety. Furthermore, the literature review section concentrated on the methods used by researchers to conduct their studies. Second, the literature review section offers a balanced critical analysis of the literature. It clearly analyzes the correlation between worry and anxiety. It has also discussed in-depth statistics anxiety stating its definition, characteristics, and causes. The third reason why the article’s literature review was perfect is that they were empirical in nature. The literature is offering reliable information concerning the research topic (Chiesi & Primi, 2010). Similarly, they offer evidence-based information. That is, they provide information that has been researched and proven to be true. Despite all the perfection, the section of the literature review contains it has a single fault. Most of the pieces of literature were old, considering the period when the research was conducted. The investigator used literature as which was published in 1985. That is as old as twenty years. The best literature should be of ten years and below.
Besides, the objectives of the study were well stated in the research. The researcher clearly indicated the objective and hypothesis of the study. The first research question was that uncertainty intolerance is considerably related to worry within students of statistics at pretest. Second, was worry is considerably related to six statistics anxiety types. The final question was that intolerance uncertainty, statistics anxiety, and worry level in students would be minimized from pretest to posttest. The objectives and hypotheses were consistent with the research literature discussions in the literature review since most of the questions were tackled in the literature review section.
The research applied all the ethical standards required. The participants were well informed about the research. The investigator described the intention of the research and gave the students the opportunity to volunteer. All the students agreed to participate in the survey, meaning they all knew about the study and its intentions. The researcher guaranteed the confidentiality and anonymity of participants (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012). The participants were assured of the confidentiality of their sensitive and private information. During the survey, there were no risks or harm subjected to students. The research was carried out in an environment that provides no physical harm to respondents. Similarly, the investigator presented questions that offered little discomfort and psychological stress to participants.
Furthermore, the researcher defined all the terms, concepts, and theories he used in the study. Before discussing any concept in the research, the research would start by defining the concept. For instance, he defines statistics anxiety as anxiety feeling when doing statistics analysis or before taking the course. The researcher discusses the concept deeply after defining it.
Besides, the methodology of the research is well developed. The research design is clearly indicated in the study. The investigator researcher first explained the aim of the study to participants. The research was to determine to assess the filling of students concerning statistics as a course. The study also required the participants to perceive themselves in relation to uncertainty and worry. The researcher employed an action research design where he developed an understanding of the problem then made a plan to take action. Besides, the researcher has explained the instruments he used to collect the data. For instance, uncertainty intolerance level was examined using the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12. To assess the tendency of worry, the researcher used the Pen State Worry Questionnaire (Williams, 2013). Finally, he used the statistics anxiety scale to gauge the level of statistics anxiety in students. Validity and reliability testing were carried out, and results were properly discussed. Unfortunately, a pilot study was not carried out in this research. The investigator did not undertake a small study to test instruments of data collection, research protocols, strategies for sample recruitment, and other techniques of the research in preparation of the actual study (Janghorban, Latifnejad & Taghipour, 2014). The methodology of the research was perfect except for the pilot study.
Besides the data collected ere of student’s level of worry, statistic anxiety, and intolerance of uncertainty. The researcher then calculated descriptive statistics for variables. He calculated standard deviations and means for the data collected on worry, intolerance of uncertainty, and the various statistics dimensions (Kumar, 2018). MANOVA was used to assess the hypothesis, which states that the uncertainty intolerance, statistical anxiety, and worry level in students will be significantly minimized from pretest to posttest. That hypothesis was proven to be true. The ANOVA was also employed to examine the possible effects on all the variables except for worry and uncertainty intolerance. The statistical and data undertaken were appropriate, therefore, validating the data collected. The total number of participants was ninety-seven. The research findings were important since they described the existing relationship between statistic anxiety, worry, and intolerance of uncertainty. The findings answered all the research questions, thus explaining some of the causes of statistics anxiety.
Moreover, the results of the research are connected to the literature review. It confirms what was discussed in the literature review. The findings identify the third hypothesis, which proves to be true. The findings also prove that uncertainty intolerance results to worry, which in turn leads to statistics anxiety. All the identified hypotheses are strongly supported by the findings. The weaknesses and strengths study are not discussed in the research. The discussion part only involved explanations of the findings. The research gives a recommendation for future studies. The recommendation states that future investigators should keep researching in this area but with the addition of other variables relating to worry, anxiety, and intolerance of uncertainty.
Finally, the author included all the bibliographies of literature used on the reference page. All the books, journals, articles, and other media are well included on their own page. The borrowed pieces of literature were cited appropriately within the paraphrased texts, and the format in which references are arranged is satisfying. Both citations and references have used a standard format.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, the study was examining the relationship between worry, intolerance of uncertainty, and statistics anxiety. The article is well researched because most of the considerations are met. The study objectives are well stated in the article. The author clearly stated the purpose and the hypothesis of the study. Except for the age of literature used, every other aspect in the section of the literature review was perfect. The research also met almost all the ethical standards. Participants were not subjected to any harm and risks during the research. Similarly, the confidentiality of the secret and private information of participants was assured by the investigator. They were also aware of the purpose of the research. All instruments used in the data collection were clearly mentioned in the research. Finally, the results and discussions were also up to standards. The hypotheses mentioned in these sections were properly backed up by the findings.
References
Chiesi, F., & Primi, C. (2010). Cognitive and non-cognitive factors related to students’ statistics achievement. Statistics Education Research Journal, 9(1), 626.
Hammersley, M., & Traianou, A. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research: Controversies and contexts. Sage.
Janghorban, R., Latifnejad Roudsari, R., & Taghipour, A. (2014). Pilot study in qualitative research: The roles and values. Journal of hayat, 19(4), 1-5.
Kumar, R. (2018). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Sage.
Williams, A. S. (2013). Worry, intolerance of uncertainty, and statistics anxiety. Statistics education research journal, 12(1).
