College application essay help online

For example, one of the goals of our work is to support reasoning about integration activities during the course of an evolution, which might help forestall certain integration problems. How well can our modeling framework capture the concerns that arise in a real-world architecture evolution?

This research question was addressed by content analysis 2 and the evolution model that was constructed based on it. The construction of the evolution model is described in detail in section 5. However, understanding their significance requires us to assess their reliability and validity. An instrument is said to be valid to the extent that it captures what it sets out to capture and reliable to the extent that it yields data that is free of error. In this section, I evaluate and discuss the reliability of this case study. In the following section, I will consider validity.

However, accuracy is only occasionally relevant in content analysis, because it presumes that there is some preexisting gold standard to use as a benchmark, such as judgments by a panel of experienced content analysts. In many content analyses, especially those 101 5 Case study: Architecture evolution at Costco exploring new domains or topics, there is no such gold standard to use. The most direct way of assessing the stability of an instrument is through the use of a test-retest procedure, in which the instrument is reapplied to the same data to see if the same results emerge.

For each of the two content analysis, I conducted a second round of coding at least 17 days after the initial coding.

This provides a measure of intrarater agreement (also known by other similar names such as intracoder reliability, intra-observer variability, etc. Intrarater agreement can be quantified using the same metrics that are used to measure interrater agreement in studies with multiple coders. It is exactly what it sounds like: the percentage of coding units that were college application essay help online categorized the same way in both codings. This metric is intuitive and easy to calculate, but it is also problematic. In particular, it does not account for agreement that would occur merely by chance. Thus, the metric is biased in favor of coding frames with a small number of categories, since by chance alone, there would be a higher rate of agreement on a two-category coding frame than on a forty-category coding frame. To address this problem, researchers developed more sophisticated interrater agreement measures, which correct for both the number of categories in the coding frame and the frequency with which they are used. They differ in how the expected agreement P e is calculated.

Informally, these coefficients measure the degree to which interrater agreement exceeds the agreement that would be expected by chance. A value of 1 indicates complete agreement, a zero value indicates that the agreement is no better than chance, and a negative value indicates agreement worse than chance. For our purposes, the distinctions are unimportant, since n, k, and a are all approximately equal for our data.

Our intracoder reliability figures appear in table 8. For content analysis 1, only one set of measures is shown, since each coding unit could be assigned exactly one category from anywhere in the coding frame. In content analysis 1, there were 306 coding units and 45 categories (i.

For content analysis 2, on the other hand, three sets of reliability measures are shown, one for each main category. This is because each coding unit in content analysis 2 could be assigned three categories—one subcategory of each main category. Flowever, it turns out that college application essay help online 1 failed to adhere to this protocol consistently.

Help with term paper classification essay food category cheapest editing service research paper using z test application letter of flight attendant.

In particular, f often incorrectly treated containment relations as though they were software elements, and coded them for their presence or absence in the initial and target architectures.

In fact, this particular coding error accounted for a large portion of the disagreements in content analysis 2, depressing the reliability figures in table 8. Well, there are no universally accepted thresh- 103 5 Case study: Architecture evolution at Costco olds, but a number of methodologists have put forth guidelines. Another well-known recommendation is that of Fleiss et al. There are a couple custom writing essays services of problems with directly applying any of these well-known and widely used guidelines here. First, these guidelines are intended for assessing interrater, not intrarater, reliability.

Second, these guidelines are intended primarily for use in quantitative research.

Perhaps, considering your material and the number of your categories, a comparatively low coefficient of agreement is acceptable—this is simply the best you can do. Schreier may be incorrect college application essay help online in suggesting that a large number of categories justifies laxer standards for reliability coefficients, since chance-adjusted coefficients such as 7i, k, and a already account for the number of categories. However, the degree of interpretation required to apply a coding frame is a very good reason to treat qualitative content analysis differently from quantitative content analysis. Even considering the fact that these are coefficients of intrarater, not interrater, agreement, it seems reasonable to conclude that we have adequately demonstrated stability. Most commonly, reproducibility is measured through interrater agreement. It cannot respond to individually stable idiosyncrasies, prejudices, ideological commitments, closed-mindedness, or consistent misinterpretations of given coding instructions and texts. However, even in the absence of intercoder agreement as a reliability measure, reproducibility and intersubjectivity remain important goals in principle. Fortunately, there are other ways of getting at this quality in the absence of multiple coders. All three of these methods were used in abundance in this case study. If you have reached this point in this lengthy discussion, the thoroughness with which the 9 Translation from German custom essay toronto mine. In addition, in the process of planning and carrying out this study, I consulted with many colleagues in my department who were uninvolved with the research. Finally, the content analysis was conducted in accordance with a rigorously constructed, comprehensively defined coding frame, which is reproduced in its entirety in appendix B. The publication of the coding frame also serves a more direct replicability purpose: other researchers can adopt the coding frame and apply it to other data to assess the extent to which the coding frame itself is generalizable. After all, our aim in applying content analysis in this case study is to adopt a methodology that is commonly used in other disciplines—not to advance the current state of practice in content analysis. Indeed, it does not take much investigation to see that the current state custom writing essay service of practice with respect to the treatment of reliability in content analysis is unimpressive.

There have been several surveys investigating the treatment of reliability in published content analyses.

Custom essays review descriptive essay nature homework diary uk capstone project week 4 homework assignment sheet grade 1.