Question

What are all the strengths and all the weaknesses related to the internal validity of the research design in Item 3. (10 points) A. Strengths (5 points) b. weaknesses Measures To measure reciprocal resource dependence of state agencies and nonprofit organizations, 14 Likert-type scales were constructed with a number of items to which the respondent indicated intensity of agreement or disagreement on a six-point scale. Response categories were strongly disagree, generally disagree, disagree a little, agree a little, generally agree, strongly agree. The conceptual anchors of each scale were (1) independence and (6) dependence. That is, higher scores represented greater dependence in the area being assessed. Three scales (importance, alternative availability, and pressure) measured the dependence of state agencies on nonprofit organizations for resources. Three parallel scales measured the same dimensions for resource dependence in the other direction, that is, the dependence of nonprofit organizations on state agencies for resources. Items were predominantly attitudinal; some were behavioral. The following items are samples from the importance, alternative availability, and pressure scales, respectively. S1. State agencies often use ideas from nonprofit organizations to formulate policy recommendations. N1. Nonprofit organizations often use ideas from state agencies lO formulate policy recommendations. S2.There are certainly other supporters of agency interests as valuable as nonprofit organizations. N2. There are certainly other supporters of nonprofit organizations' interests as valuable as state agencies. S3.Agencies are in no position to force nonprofit organizations to implement their programs. N3. Nonprofit organizations are in no position to force agencies to fund their programs. Scale scores were the average of the item scores. Table 3 reports reliability results for the six scales. Alpha reliability coefficients are listed in bold-face type. Discriminant validity may be measured by the inter-scale correlation coefficients shown on the diagonal in that table. Table 3: Reliabilities of State and Nonprofit Scales Scale Reliability State Importance .67 State Alternative Availability .73 State Pressure .63 Nonprofit Importance .70 Nonprofit Alternative Availability .70 Nonprofit Pressure .75 The remaining eight scales were divided, four each for state departments and non-profit agencies, into individual service areas. These were arts, health, developmental disabilities, and human services. The first set of four examined dependence of the state departments on nonprofit agencies in the four areas; the second set of four scales assessed the dependence of nonprofits on state agencies in the same four areas. The average of the three individual scale scores measuring state agency dependence on nonprofit agencies became Dsn in the model. The average of the three individual scale scores measuring nonprofit agency dependence on state agencies became Dns. These reciprocal resource flows, understood together, became the basis for a g e n e r a l model of resource dependence between sectors. Design The design of the study was [Enter the Study Design Here]. The particular strengths of this design are [Enter the Design Strengths Here]. The design is weak in the areas of [Enter the Design Weaknesses Here]. Procedure The total number of study participants was 153: 80 nonprofit and 73 state agency managers. Public-sector respondents were 20 people, including commissioners, from each of the 4 state agencies and executive directors from 20 nonprofit organizations in each of the service areas. Of the 80 nonprofit agency respondents, 14 were top-level managers other than the executive director. All nonprofit and some state agency respondents participated in two-part, on-site interviews, including a self-administered survey completed immediately and an interview with demographic and open-ended questions. State agency commissioners designated two additional executive administrators for the research interview, and they, in turn, identified 17 other managers to receive a mailed survey.

Answer 1

Answer:

Measures to measure reciprocal resource dependence of state agencies and nonprofit organizations, 14 Likert-type scales were constructed with a number of items to which the respondent indicated intensity of agreement or disagreement on a six-point scale. Response categories were strongly disagree a little.

The conceptual anchors of each scale were (1) independence & (6) dependence. That's, higher scores represented greater dependence in the area being assessed. 3 scales measured Dns for resource dep of nonprofit organizations on state agencies for resources. Items were predominantly attitudinal; some were behavioral. The following items are samples from the importance, alternative availability, & pressure scales, respectively. S1.

N1. Nonprofit organizations often use ideas from state agencies lO formulae policy. S2.There are certainly other of agency interests as valuable as nonprofit organizations. N2. There are certainly other of nonprofit organizations' interests as valuable as state agencies.

Nonprofit organizations are in one position to force agencies to found their programs. Scale scores were the average of the item scores.

Table 3 reports reliability results for the 6 scales.

Alpha reliability coefficients are listed in bold-face type.

Discriminant validity maybe measured by the inter-scale correlation coefficients shown on the diagonal in that table.

Table 3: Reliabilities of State and Nonprofit Scales, Reliability State Importance.

67 State Alternative Availability

73 State Pressure.

63 Nonprofit Importance .

70 Nonprofit Alternative Availability.70 Nonprofit Pressure .75 The remaining eight scales were divided, four each for state departments and non-profit agencies, into individual service areas.

The 1st set of four examined dependence of the state the dependence of nonprofits on state agencies in the same 4 areas. The average of the 3 individual scale scores measuring state agency dependence on nonprofit agencies became Dsn in the model.

The average of the 3 individual scale scores measuring nonprofit agency dependence on state agencies became Dns. These reciprocal resource flows, understood together, became the basis for a general model of resource dependence between sectors. The particular strengths of this design are

Strengths-

1. It's trivial to say that reciprocal resource dependence of state agencies & nonprofit organizations working as on.

2.This research design is mainly depend on state agencies performance their lossless activities...

3.Nonprofit organizations on state agencies for resources are the Items were predominantly attitudinal; some were behavioral.

4.Importance, alternative availability, and pressure scales, respectiv are much imp factors regarding this design.

5.Organizational strengths are much useful in responsible places......Overall this design may have some restrictions but it's central points are very achievable.

6. Overall all it's best design which give much more strong statement which is also in real situations.

7.On the other hand this proper reasonable design related to main objectives.

The design is weak in the areas of Weakness:

1.This research design is mainly dependent on restrictional demands.

2.Stat level prediction is there which also matter for prediction.

3. It is strongly bounded in researchers thinking rectangular.

4.Observational study also matters which have different meaning on different mides.

5. it's one of the way to construct design but some time it may give improper results for future prediction.

6. some 5% error is tollerable for this research design. The total number of study participants was 153: 80 nonprofit and 73 state agency managers. Public-sector respondents were 20 people, including commissioners, from each of the 4 state agencies and executive directors from 20 nonprofit organizations in each of the service areas.

7.Of the 80 nonprofit agency respondents, 14 were top-level managers other than the executive director. All nonprofit and some state agency respondents participated in two-part, on-site interviews, including a self-administered survey completed immediately and an interview with demographic and open-ended questions. State agent.