Dissertation Help

1.
General Information

Student Name:

Latissha Graves 20373099

Chair:

Ruzanna Topchyan

Review Date:

10/5/2025

Methodologist:

Kerry Burner

Research Consultant:

Phillip Davidson

Content Expert:

None yet

SDA Supervisor:

SDA 6 Adell Newman-Lee

Review Level:

Level-1

Dissertation Title:

Possible Predictors of Leadership Emergence in Divorce Women Ages 35 – 50

2.
General Observations

Provide an overall summary of the document’s strengths and areas for improvement

Strengths

1. The instrumentation the student plans on using is well established and reliable.

2. The research method and design are a good fit for the specific study.

3. The topic is pertinent and relevant. The measurement of leadership emergence among midlife divorced women addresses an important societal and scholarly gap,

Areas for Improvement

1. Problem, purpose, are not in alignment and RQs could be reduced to one RQ for ease of use. There were no hypotheses listed in the Core Elements.

2. Sample size calculation incorrectly adds the require 15% to account for bad or incomplete data and another 15% for the possibility of needed to do a non-parametric analysis should an assume fail. The final sample size needed is 325. In addition, the ultimate sample calculation using the Events Per Variable is incorrectly described.

3. The inclusion criteria need to be clarified. One of your variables is leadership status, but there does not appear to be any criteria related to “inclusion” that reflects this variable. That could be a significant issue should all the participants have the same status.

3.
Level 1 – Critical Feasibility/Risk Items

Met/Not Met

1. The problem space is defined and justified with relevant data and/or scholarly sources.

Met

2.

The variables and how they are measured are supported by the instrument/data source. The null hypotheses that are being tested align with the proposed analytical approach.

Not Met

3.

Researcher is likely to obtain the needed site permission(s) to access the target population(s). Sufficiently large target population and recruitment plan to meet the minimum sample size as dictated by the planned analysis and variable structure. There are no ethical issues with accessing the target population.

Met

Comments:

4.
Level 2 – Critical Feasibility/Risk Items

Met/Not Met

1. If applicable, a complete and aligned revised core elements table and/or variable table are provided.

Met/Not Met

2. All variables align with the instruments being used. All instruments, including descriptive only, are provided in the appendix including scoring of variables.

Met/Not Met

3. The participant recruitment strategy, informed consent process, data collection process, and data management process are clearly identified, enabling potential study replication.

Met/Not Met

4. Data cleaning and preparation is in accordance with instruments. Assumptions testing aligns with intended analysis. Correct interpretation of final statistical results in rejecting/retaining null hypotheses are indicted.

Met/Not Met

Comments:

5.
Level 5 – Critical Feasibility/Risk Items

Met/Not Met

1.
If applicable, complete revised core elements table and/or variable table and/or data analysis is included.

Met/Not Met

2. Data cleaning and preparation is in accordance with instruments. Assumptions testing aligns with intended analysis.

Met/Not Met

3. Correct descriptions of the demographic qualities of the sample are presented. Appropriate descriptive statistics are presented.

Met/Not Met

4. Correct interpretation of final statistical results in rejecting/failing to reject null hypotheses are indicated.

Met/Not Met

Comments:

6.
Constructive Feedback

Actionable suggestions for improving the chapter.

1. Please refer to the comments in the core elements section to bring your problem and purpose statements into alignment and address issues with refining your research question(s). Be sure to also add in the hypotheses for the research question. There should be four sets of hypotheses. One for the predictor variables combined, and one additional set for the three predictor variables independently.

2. Please clarify your inclusion criteria to ensure that an aspect of leadership is included.

3. Revisit your sample size calculation and correct the sample size as well as the statements related to how the sample size was calculated.

5.
Writing and Presentation

Evaluate the clarity, coherence, and academic rigor of the writing.

Clarity and Readability

Adherence to Academic Standards / APA Formatting

|_| Excellent

|_| Excellent

|_| Adequate

|X| Adequate

|X| Needs Improvement

|_| Needs Improvement

Comments:

6.
Consultant’s Recommendations

Recommended next steps for the student.

This is a well written chapter 1. None of the issues are difficult or complex to resolve. It is recommended that the student work closely with the chair and methodologist to quickly address the issues noted before moving on with the rest of the proposal.

7.
Recommended Resources

Stoltzfus, J. C. (2011). Logistic regression: a brief primer. Academic Emergency Medicine, 18(10), 1099-1104.

8. SDA Supervisor Action Requested

Immediate actions requested by the research consultant from the SDA supervisor. State “None” if the notice is advisory only.

None at this time

9. SDA Supervisor Notes