228 The Professional Counselor | Volume 12, Issue 3 outliers (z > 3.29). A review of skewness and kurtosis values were highly consistent with a normal distribution, with the majority of values less than ± 1.0. The results of a Levene’s test demonstrated that the data met the assumption of homogeneity of variance, F(2, 121) = 0.73, p = .486. Testing the data for sphericity was not applicable in this case, as the within-subjects IV (time) only comprised two levels. Conclusion The current article is a primer on guidelines, best practices, and recommendations for writing or evaluating the rigor of the Methods section of quantitative studies. Although the major elements of the Methods section summarized in this manuscript tend to be similar across the national peerreviewed counseling journals, differences can exist between journals based on the content of the article and the editorial board members’ preferences. Accordingly, it can be advantageous for prospective authors to review recently published manuscripts in their target journal(s) to look for any similarities in the structure of the Methods (and other sections). For instance, in one journal, participants and procedures might be reported in a single subsection, whereas in other journals they might be reported separately. In addition, most journals post a list of guidelines for prospective authors on their websites, which can include instructions for writing the Methods section. The Methods section might be the most important section in a quantitative study, as in all likelihood methodological flaws cannot be resolved once data collection is complete, and serious methodological flaws will compromise the integrity of the entire study, rendering it unpublishable. It is also essential that consumers of quantitative research can proficiently evaluate the quality of a Methods section, as poor methods can make the results meaningless. Accordingly, the significance of carefully planning, executing, and writing a quantitative research Methods section cannot be understated. Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure The authors reported no conflict of interest or funding contributions for the development of this manuscript. References American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics. American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association: The official guide to APA style (7th ed.). American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). The standards for educational and psychological testing. https://www.aera.net/Publications/Books/Standards-for-Educational-Psychological-Testing-2014-Edition Balkin, R. S., & Sheperis, C. J. (2011). Evaluating and reporting statistical power in counseling research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(3), 268–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00088.x Bardhoshi, G., & Erford, B. T. (2017). Processes and procedures for estimating score reliability and precision. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50(4), 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2017.1388680 Berwick, D. M., Murphy, J. M., Goldman, P. A., Ware, J. E., Jr., Barsky, A. J., & Weinstein, M. C. (1991). Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Medical Care, 29(2), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199102000-00008 End Exemplar
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU5MTM1