Quality Assessment of a Quantitative Study on Contingency Management for Smoking Cessation

This document provides a quality assessment of a quantitative study on the effectiveness of contingency management for smoking cessation. It examines various aspects such as selection bias, study design, confounders, blinding, and data collection methods. The study is a randomized controlled trial and includes measures to control for confounders. The data collection tools used in the study are shown to be valid.

OPTION 1: Individual submission (begin with this template and use it to submit your draft)
Structured 3,500 word essay maximum excluding the words of these
questions and your list of references. Expand the explanation boxes as
required. This template contains approximately 1510 words.
You must use this worksheet to complete the assessment and
submit it through Turnitin.
Pair number
Name and student
number
Vijender Kaur x; 10497757
Second reviewer,
name and student
number
Date draft submitted
through TurnitIn.
Word count (not including the
words for the form and the
references):
Date of exchange
individual work and
discussion with
partner
Study assessed as described in:
Dallery, J., Raiff, B. R., Kim, S. J., Marsch, L. A., Stitzer, M., & Grabinski, M. J.
(2017). Nationwide access to an internet‐based contingency management
intervention to promote smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial.
Addiction, 112(5), 875-883.
Remember, you are assessing the study which is described, and not this single
publication. You will need to check and identify if additional information about
this study is available. If so then you can incorporate the information into the
responses. Please be aware that sometimes the information may conflict. Place
your answers inside the boxes.
QUALITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR QUANTITATIVE STUDIES
Please complete these the questions presented as structured
paragraphs as you would in an essay. Clearly mark your
selection or cross-out the choice not applicable. Do not use
highlighting or colour change as this is not recognised in
Turnitin. Demonstrate your knowledge of epidemiological
principles within each section and support your statements.

Part 1: (Initially undertaken on your own)
Show the structured PICO question of the study
P – Population of cigarette smokers
I -Contingency management incentive program
C – Comparison between smokers and non-smokers
O – Point prevalence seen at week 4
T – Abstinence rates and observations have been taken for 4 weeks
COMPONENT RATINGS
A) SELECTION BIAS
(Q1) Are the individuals selected to participate in the study likely to be representative of the target
population?
1. Very likely
2. Somewhat likely
3.Not likely
4. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:
Participants of a given study are usually more suitable for representation of the target population when there
has been randomisation of the population mainly targeted for taking part in the study. Referring to the given
study, patients have been randomised in the ratio of 1:1 which is compared to abstinence contingent or
submission contingent group (Kratochwill & Levin, 2014). Moreover the randomisation of the participants
during the study has been followed by distribution of financial incentives which has been based on abstinence.
Moreover the accuracy of the statistical surveys conducted n randomised clinical trials are useful in the
retrieval of the percentage of subjects in the intervention groups as well as control groups who have given
consent for participation during assignment of the control groups. There was screening of people who would
take part in the study thus ensuring voluntary participation. However the author has provided no percentage
of the people who have agreed in the study. Incentives have been offered for participation. Thus overall The
selection of people for the study non-smokers in this case has been successful in being the representatives of
the various target populations (Rosenbaum, 2014).
(Q2) What percentage of selected individuals agreed to participate?
1. 80 - 100% agreement
2. 60 – 79% agreement
3. less than 60% agreement
4. Not applicable
5. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:
In the given study the author has explained the ways of choosing the sample and subjects in the statistical
studies. Invitations was given to the participants on the basis of their age which was more than 18 years, the
score on the 10 point Likert scale which was inclusive of 8 or more than 8 . The likert scale has been based on
the desire for smoking at least 10 cigarettes per day and other related events. However the percentage of
people who had agreed to take part in the study has been mentioned clearly and much less than half of the
participants. Moreover, although the voluntary participation has been mentioned and justified clearly by the
author, the number of people agreeing or disagreeing to the study is much less as 212 out of 411 participants
have not completed the requirements of the survey and has been eliminated due to various reasons (Kahan et
al., 2014). Confounding has been usually associated with the outcome of the disease along with the potential
confounding factors which is required for the design and the analysis of the epidemiological studies. Thus the
concept of confounding has been associated with the participation of the people in the statistical study. There
has been total 52% of the people who have agreed for participation thereby including the concept of
confounding.

RATE THIS SECTION STRONG MODERATE WEAK
See dictionary 1 2 3
Provide your explanation:
Selection bias in statistical studies is defined as the selection of the individuals, data or groups which has been
chosen for analysis ensuring that randomization is not usually received and simultaneously the sample which
has not been obtained a as representative of population which have been intended to be analysed (Zin, Zhou &
He, 2015 ). Sometimes, selection bias in studies also has been known as selection effect. In the given study
randomisation which is considered to be a result of the effective participation and representation of the perfect
population as well as sample size in the give study has been received as the author has clearly justified the
reason of the sample study taken for population. However the percentage or population of people who have
agreed to participate in the given study has not been justified as only 51% of the population have been
considered or the study. Over all the selection bias of the population of non-smokers in the given study and
effective evaluation of the contingency management for promotion of drug abstinence has been moderate.
Although the randomization of the sample in the given intervention based study has been a strong point in the
statistical, study, the absence of the information regarding the number of people taking part in the study is not
mentioned making it a moderate point in the given study (Fan, 2018).
B) STUDY DESIGN
Indicate the study design
1. Randomized controlled trial
2. Controlled clinical trial
3. Cohort analytic (two group pre + post)
4. Case-control
5. Cohort (one group pre + post (before and after))
6. Interrupted time series
7.Other, please specify:
8. Can’t tell
Was the study described as randomized? If NO, go to Component C.
No Yes
If Yes, was the method of randomization described? (See dictionary)
No Yes
If Yes, was the method appropriate? (See dictionary)
No Yes
Provide your explanation:
Yes the study has been randomised as the participants who have undergone the study has been selected
through random trials and special software have been implemented for introducing randomisations in the
sample selected. The methods of randomisation have been described as they have been clearly
mentioned by the author. Randomisation among the sample population has been introduced into the
study through the automation by Excel macro which would usually code the participants and their choices
based on the gender as well as smoking severity. Moreover the following processes include that
assignment of the participants in the group with a lower population who would combine sexcode along
with smoking severity. Yes the method has been appropriate as the privacy of the information for the
participants has been maintained by the author. The participants have been given the questionnaire
through online submission which has ensured confidentiality of the personal information. However there
has been no mention about the measures taken to prevent leakage of the information online (Bland,
2015).
RATE THIS SECTION STRONG MODERATE WEAK

See dictionary 1 2 3
Provide your explanation:
Study design is an important part of the quality assessment as it gives an idea about the likelihood of
biasness based on the allocation process in the experimental studies. The basic research design clear
mentioned and justified by the author has been a randomised control trial. The author has used
randomisation for the selection of the sample in the given study as it would help investigator in the
intervention as well as control groups. Although the author has not mentioned about the various processes
taken online for prevention of leakage of the information, the overall research design has been moderate and
strong enough to indicate the basic purpose of the study and reduce the percentage of biasness in the given
study (Groot et al., 2016).
C) CONFOUNDERS
(Q1) Were there important differences between groups prior to the intervention?
1.Yes
2. No
3. Can’t tell
The following are examples of confounders:
1. Race
2. Sex
3. Marital status/family
4. Age
5. SES (income or class)
6. Education
7. Health status
8. Pre-intervention score on outcome measure
Provide your explanation:
There has been an establishment of the confounders mentioned in the given experimental study. For the
outcomes which included significant differences among the chi square tests, various models of logistic
regression had been applied. Thus these variables have been adjusted for the baseline characteristics which
have been inclusive of annual income, sex, age the various years of daily smoking as well as the number of
cigarettes which has been smoked. The author has found a distinct difference between the levels of smoking
based on age as college student academically brilliant have shown a higher percentage than the students with
higher degrees. Moreover the determination of the rates of smoking based on the geographical locations has
also been specified (Philips, 2015).
(Q2) If yes, indicate the percentage of relevant confounders that were controlled (either in the
design (e.g. stratification, matching) or analysis)?
1. 80 – 100% (most)
2. 60 – 79% (some)
3. Less than 60% (few or none)
4. Can’t Tell
RATE THIS SECTION STRONG MODERATE WEAK
See dictionary 1 2 3

Provide your explanation:
Confounders are important in a statistical study as I is inclusive of a variable which is usually associated with e
exposure of the intervention which is related to the various outcomes of interest. Its significant in statistical
studies as the control of the confounders are important for stratification or matching of the analysis. Here
various variables like the age, no of cigarettes smoked have been considered as important variables in the
study. The difference between the variables based on the demographic variables has been considered.
Moreover the efficacy of CM for the promotion of smoking cessation has been especially noticed in women
who are pregnant and post-partum women (Little & Rubin, 2019). Thus the percentage of the confounders
who were controlled during the study is 52%.
D) BLINDING
(Q1) Was (were) the outcome assessor(s) aware of the intervention or exposure status of
participants?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:
The outcome assessor have not been aware of the interventions and its aims. The author throughout the paper
has explained the reasons behind the sample size and the various variables considered for analysis. However
the author has not explained any issue regarding the assessors being known to the requirements of the study.
Thus prior information has not been given whether the participants have been aware or unaware of the
proceedings of the experiment (Schreiber et al., 2016).
(Q2) Were the study participants aware of the research question?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:
The participants taking part in the study have not been aware of the research question or the requirements of
the study. They have not been informed about the various procedures to be included in the study. The author
have not mentioned cases where prior information from the subjects have been taken for the fulfilling the
requirements of the experiments thus the participants have been blinded in the given study which is an
disadvantage for the carrying out the statistical studies (Beins & Mc Carthy, 2016).
RATE THIS SECTION STRONG MODERATE WEAK
See dictionary 1 2 3
Provide your explanation:
There has been no information given by the author regarding the accessibility of information by the assessors
along with the participants. No prior information regarding the ethical issues undertaken for the experiment
along with the consent of the participants have not been taken. Thus the information regarding the blinding of
the participants cannot be mentioned in the particular paper as the author has not mentioned any information
of the participants or the assessors included in the experiment being known to the various methodologies and
rules and regulations to be considered and be aware of in the study (Pyrczak, 2016).

E) DATA COLLECTION METHODS
(Q1) Were data collection tools shown to be valid?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:
Tools for primary outcomes has been mentioned as well as described according to the validity and reliability of
the study. In this particular experiment, screening methods have been implemented for the
participant’s .Standard assessment tools have been included for the reliability as well as validity of the study.
For the experimental survey there has been screening of the uninterested patients online which has been
followed by further screening methods usually over the phone. The questionnaires given to the participants
have been taken and the results have been assessed for further screening where the incomplete
questionnaires have been excluded. Moreover assessment scale ranging from 0 -10 have been considered for
dependence as well as higher scores which usually indicate higher dependence. Thus overall the screening
procedures have been considered in the study confirming the validity of the study (Wildemuth 2016).
(Q2) Were data collection tools shown to be reliable?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:
There has been measurement of the reliability and validity tools of the particular experiment by the author. In
the given study, power calculations have been done for the estimation of the power size and this has been
followed by the projection studies of 32 subjects which have been able to detect various effects of 0.70 . The
estimated power of the studies has been .80 which has been used for determination of an alpha value of 0.05.
Thus from the following studies it can be understood that the author has constructed validations studies as
only those participants have been conducted whose value is less than 0.05 according to the alpha value of
0.05 (Taber, 2018).
RATE THIS SECTION STRONG MODERATE WEAK
See dictionary 1 2 3
Provide your explanation:
There have been strong relations between the validity tests in methods for the data collection processes of
the following experiment.
Data collection methods include an important part of the statistical procedures as it gives an overall idea
about the participants in the study and the various methods utilised in the study including the reliability of the
data and the validity testing of the data included. Data collection methods are usually of three types. Self-
reported data have been including data which would be usually collected from participants in the study.
Screening procedures would be used for objective data which would be mainly used for retrieval of the data.
Moreover the implementation of medical records along with vital statistics has been referred to as the use of
various formal records for the extraction of the data. In the given study, various procedures have been
implemented for assessing the reliability as well as validity for the study. Screening methods have been
applied primarily through online processes and the secondary processes have been done after the distribution
of the questionnaires. For the validity testing the author has used corn Bach’s alpha where the results and the
data would be considered whose value is less than 0.05. Thus overall it can be concluded that the author has
successfully explored and justified the data collection methods and justified its validity through various
measurements (Bonnet & Wright, 2015).
F) WITHDRAWALS AND DROP-OUTS
(Q1) Were withdrawals and drop-outs reported in terms of numbers and/or reasons per group?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Can’t tell
4. Not Applicable (i.e. one time surveys or interviews)
(Q2) Indicate the percentage of participants completing the study. (If the percentage differs by
groups, record the lowest).
1. 80 -100%
2. 60 - 79%
3. less than 60%
4. Can’t tell
5. Not Applicable (i.e. Retrospective case-control)
RATE THIS SECTION STRONG MODERATE WEAK
See dictionary 1 2 3 Not Applicable
Provide your explanation:
Among the various studies conducted in the statistical analysis of the experimental design, total 411 have
visited the website. Although they have completed the information online as well confirmed receiving
information after not having the financial ability. Other people have been unresponsive regarding the attempts
of considering them in the study. Out of various persons already enrolled for the study, 46 have been
unwilling for paying the deposit, 15 have not access to computer with internet access and 27 have been
excluded with various reasons like the occupational exposure to carbon monoxide. Thus the data have not
been collected systematically for not paying deposits online but there has been financial disability of any
participants in the study. Thus the author has been successful in justifying the reasons for the withdrawal of
the subjects and their responses in the study. Moreover only 94 people have participated in the study which
shows that very few people have taken part in the study whose data has been taken into consideration.
Overall the author has been successful in considering the participation of the subjects in the study (Emami et
al., 2014).
G) INTERVENTION INTEGRITY
(Q1) What percentage of participants received the allocated intervention or exposure of interest?
1. 80 -100%
2. 60 - 79%
3. less than 60%
4. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:
94 participants have received the allocated interventions and there has not been any participants who have
not received any intervention. The number of participants during the follow up has been reducing in number
as almost 5 of the participants have been losing the follow up every time. Moreover almost 46 of the subjects
have been submitted for submission contingent and have received the allocated intervention. Thus almost less
than 50 % of the participants have taken the intervention (Marusic et al., 2014).
(Q2) Was the consistency of the intervention measured?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:
The consistency of the intervention has been maintained each time and only 5 people have not been able to
continue for the follow ups. Thus the rest of the participants have continued for the assessments continuously
with continuous follow up regularly for every 3 months. After 6 month follow up there has been an analysis of
the studies which has been conducted in the study. The number of people allocated has been divided into two
groups where almost 48 people have received the abstinent contingent and the rest of 46 people have been
submitted to the submission contingent (Efthimiou et al., 2016).
(Q3) Is it likely that subjects received an unintended intervention (contamination or co-
intervention) that may influence the results?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:
No such mention about unintended or intervention has been mentioned by the author. Co intervention usually
occurs when there is an additional intervention among the participants receiving interventions. Moreover
contamination also occurs when the effect of the interventions are overestimated. The control group accidentally
receives study interventions. No such cases have been reported by the author. Thus the intervention integrity
has been maintained by the author throughout the study (Center & Manchikanti, 2016).
H) ANALYSES
(Q1) Indicate the unit of allocation (circle one)
community / a group of people / individual or patient
(Q2) Indicate the unit of analysis (circle one)
community / a group of people / individual or patient
Provide your explanation to Q1 & Q2:
A particular group of people has been considered for the study which includes non-smokers as well as smokers.
The 48 people which has been divided into two groups consisting of 48 as well as 46 people simultaneously
belong to various communities and they have taken on the habits of smoking and its intensity. Thus the number
of people smoking a particular amount of cigarettes everyday has been considered for the study. After the
analysis also it can be seen that almost 48 as well as 46 people have been at the end of the study ready for
analysis showing theta the similar groups have been maintained throughout the study (Silverman, 2018).
(Q3) Are the statistical methods appropriate for the study design? [Please attempt to answer this
question within your current knowledge of statistics. You may wish to state the limitations of your
knowledge]
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:

Statistical analysis has been conducted for the following studies. For the population of non-smoker, SPSS
analyses have been done. Power calculation results have been done for detection of the effective sample size
and estimation of the power using the alpha value for validation studies. Chi square tests have been done for the
examination of the effects of interventions n the outcomes of cessation of smoking for the point of time.
Outcomes having significant group differences have been considered in chi square tests. Furthermore evaluation
of the results has been done through various regression analysis which have been mainly evaluated and applied
for the adjustment and for the various baseline characteristics. Thus the author has used appropriate tools for
the measurement of the variable and establishing the relationship between them (Hussey et al. 2016).
(Q4) Is the analysis performed by intervention allocation status (i.e. intention to treat) rather than
the actual intervention received?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Can’t tell
Provide your explanation:
Intention to treat analyses are usually favoured for the effectiveness of the assessment as they are useful in
mirroring the non-compliance as well as treatment changes which are likely to occur during the intervention
which would be in practice. Moreover the intention to treat analysis is useful for risk of attrition when
participants are usually excluded from the analysis.
Here an intention to treat has been followed as participants have been in trial in terms of the intervention they
have been allocated among the population of the smokers differentiated form the non-smokers (Hox, Moerbek &
Scoot, 2017).
GLOBAL RATING
COMPONENT RATINGS
Please transcribe the information from the grey boxes on pages 1-4 onto this page. See dictionary on how to rate
this section.
A SELECTION BIAS STRONG MODERATE WEAK
1 2 3
B STUDY DESIGN STRONG MODERATE WEAK
1 2 3
C CONFOUNDERS STRONG MODERATE WEAK
1 2 3
D BLINDING STRONG MODERATE WEAK
1 2 3
E DATA COLLECTION METHOD STRONG MODERATE WEAK
1 2 3
F WITHDRAWALS AND
DROPOUTS
STRONG MODERATE WEAK
1 2 3 Not Applicable
CIISV.x75788
GLOBAL RATING FOR THIS PAPER (circle one):
1 STRONG (no WEAK ratings)

2 MODERATE (one WEAK rating)
3 WEAK (two or more WEAK ratings)
References: (may be in addition to the 3,500 word limit)
Beins, B. C., & McCarthy, M. A. (2017). Research methods and statistics. Cambridge University Press.
Bland, M. (2015). An introduction to medical statistics. Oxford University Press (UK).
Bonett, D. G., & Wright, T. A. (2015). Cronbach's alpha reliability: Interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample
size planning. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 3-15.
Center, P., & Manchikanti, L. (2015). A systematic review and best evidence synthesis of effectiveness of therapeutic
facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. Pain physician, 18, E535-E582.
Dallery, J., Raiff, B. R., Kim, S. J., Marsch, L. A., Stitzer, M., & Grabinski, M. J. (2017). Nationwide access to an
internet‐based contingency management intervention to promote smoking cessation: a randomized controlled
trial. Addiction, 112(5), 875-883.
Efthimiou, O., Mavridis, D., Cipriani, A., Leucht, S., Bagos, P., & Salanti, G. (2014). An approach for modelling
multiple correlated outcomes in a network of interventions using odds ratios. Statistics in medicine, 33(13),
2275-2287.
Emami, E., Kabawat, M., Rompre, P. H., & Feine, J. S. (2014). Linking evidence to treatment for denture stomatitis: a
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of dentistry, 42(2), 99-106.
Fan, J. (2018). Local polynomial modelling and its applications: monographs on statistics and applied probability 66.
Routledge.
Groot, C., Hooghiemstra, A. M., Raijmakers, P. G. H. M., Van Berckel, B. N. M., Scheltens, P., Scherder, E. J. A., ... &
Ossenkoppele, R. (2016). The effect of physical activity on cognitive function in patients with dementia: a
meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Ageing research reviews, 25, 13-23.
Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & Van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Routledge.
Hussey, P. S., Timbie, J. W., Burgette, L. F., Wenger, N. S., Nyweide, D. J., & Kahn, K. L. (2015). Appropriateness of
advanced diagnostic imaging ordering before and after implementation of clinical decision support
systems. Jama, 313(21), 2181-2182.
Jin, Z. C., Zhou, X. H., & He, J. (2015). Statistical methods for dealing with publication bias in meta‐analysis. Statistics
in Medicine, 34(2), 343-360.
Kahan, B. C., Jairath, V., Doré, C. J., & Morris, T. P. (2014). The risks and rewards of covariate adjustment in

randomized trials: an assessment of 12 outcomes from 8 studies. Trials, 15(1), 139.
Kratochwill, T. R., & Levin, J. R. (2014). Single-case intervention research: Methodological and statistical advances.
American Psychological Association.
Little, R. J., & Rubin, D. B. (2019). Statistical analysis with missing data (Vol. 793). Wiley.
Marusic, A., Wager, E., Utrobicic, A., Rothstein, H. R., & Sambunjak, D. (2016). Interventions to prevent misconduct
and promote integrity in research and publication. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4).
Phillips, D. E., AbouZahr, C., Lopez, A. D., Mikkelsen, L., De Savigny, D., Lozano, R., ... & Setel, P. W. (2015). Are
well functioning civil registration and vital statistics systems associated with better health outcomes?. The
Lancet, 386(10001), 1386-1394.
Pyrczak, F. (2016). Making sense of statistics: A conceptual overview.
Rosenbaum, P. R. (2014). Sensitivity analysis in observational studies. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online.
Schreiber, S., Parent, E. C., Moez, E. K., Hedden, D. M., Hill, D. L., Moreau, M., ... & Southon, S. C. (2016). Schroth
physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises added to the standard of care lead to better Cobb angle
outcomes in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis–an assessor and statistician blinded randomized controlled
trial. PloS one, 11(12), e0168746.
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science
education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273-1296.
Wildemuth, B. M. (Ed.). (2016). Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library
science. ABC-CLIO.