300 words agree or disagree  to each question  Q1 There are various types of methods when conducting research that we’ve learned thus far in the course. There is quantitative, which consists of numerical summations and facts for summary purposes and “emphasize data that cannot be disputed because it can be objectively measured” (APUS, 2016, 1). Then there is the qualitative method, which is contrary to quantitative methods. Qualitative observations are unstructured and broad, focusing on anything the researcher deems credible to a study (Ellis, et all, 2009). Finally, there is the mixed method, which is a combination of both quantitative and qualitative methods. There are many different types of data collections instruments that researchers use for their studies. There are: self-defined instruments, qualitative instruments, published instruments and modified instruments. Self-Defined instruments require extensive knowledge of the subject being study, including developing the steps and testing (possibly multiple) to ensure the validity of results (APUS, 2016, 2). This type of instrument is not recommended for first-time researchers. Qualitative instruments can include interview questions because the researcher has based their questions on others. Results are typically shared with experts to determine the validity of the results as well as making recommendations for change. Published instruments are data collection instruments developed by others, however these should be used cautiously because just because an instrument has been published, doesn’t necessarily equate to it being reliable. (APUS, 2016, 2). Modified instruments are simply published instruments where modifications have been made. To ensure these instruments are efficient, it is vital to ensure their validity and reliability.  There are two types of validity: construct and content. Construct validity consist of whether the items align with concepts or constructs (APUS, 2016, 2). Content validity is the extent to which an instrument measures what it is intended to measure. For my research proposal: Terrorism in Prison: Addressing Islamic Radicalism and Combating Recruitment, I utilized a mixed approach. Using both qualitative and quantitative methods were necessary due to the difficulty when utilizing a quantitative method of determining radicalism in a prison setting. I intend to use two instruments for my research: ERG22+ (Extremism Risk Guidelines) as well as interviewing and surveying convicted terrorists. The ERG22+ was the first risk assessment tool for violent extremism (Heide, et. all, 2019). It was created in the U.K. and the structure is based on 22 factors organized into three different domains: Engagement, Intent, and Capability. The ERG22+ is based on a Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) that consists of empirical knowledge of extremists and terrorists (Powis et. all, 2019). The participants of this tool are convicted terrorists in the U.K. Next, the ERG22+ was.

1. 300 words agree or disagree to each question
Q1
There are various types of methods when conducting research
that we’ve learned thus far in the course. There is quantitative,
which consists of numerical summations and facts for summary
purposes and “emphasize data that cannot be disputed because it
can be objectively measured” (APUS, 2016, 1). Then there is
the qualitative method, which is contrary to quantitative
methods. Qualitative observations are unstructured and broad,
focusing on anything the researcher deems credible to a study
(Ellis, et all, 2009). Finally, there is the mixed method, which is
a combination of both quantitative and qualitative methods.
There are many different types of data collections instruments
that researchers use for their studies. There are: self-defined
instruments, qualitative instruments, published instruments and
modified instruments. Self-Defined instruments require
extensive knowledge of the subject being study, including
developing the steps and testing (possibly multiple) to ensure
the validity of results (APUS, 2016, 2). This type of instrument
is not recommended for first-time researchers. Qualitative
instruments can include interview questions because the
researcher has based their questions on others. Results are
typically shared with experts to determine the validity of the
results as well as making recommendations for change.
Published instruments are data collection instruments developed
by others, however these should be used cautiously because just
because an instrument has been published, doesn’t necessarily
equate to it being reliable. (APUS, 2016, 2). Modified
instruments are simply published instruments where
modifications have been made. To ensure these instruments are
efficient, it is vital to ensure their validity and reliability.

2. There are two types of validity: construct and content.
Construct validity consist of whether the items align with
concepts or constructs (APUS, 2016, 2). Content validity is the
extent to which an instrument measures what it is intended to
measure.
For my research proposal: Terrorism in Prison: Addressing
Islamic Radicalism and Combating Recruitment, I utilized a
mixed approach. Using both qualitative and quantitative
methods were necessary due to the difficulty when utilizing a
quantitative method of determining radicalism in a prison
setting. I intend to use two instruments for my research:
ERG22+ (Extremism Risk Guidelines) as well as interviewing
and surveying convicted terrorists. The ERG22+ was the first
risk assessment tool for violent extremism (Heide, et. all,
2019). It was created in the U.K. and the structure is based on
22 factors organized into three different domains: Engagement,
Intent, and Capability. The ERG22+ is based on a Structured
Professional Judgment (SPJ) that consists of empirical
knowledge of extremists and terrorists (Powis et. all, 2019). The
participants of this tool are convicted terrorists in the U.K.
Next, the ERG22+ was completed by forensic psychologists or
probation officers who had received training (Powis et. all,
2019).. The validity of ERG22+ was examined using a multi-
dimensional scale analysis and found that out of 0 (valid) and 1
(invalid) score of 0 and 1, the ERG22+ scored a .23 indicating a
relatively good fit. The internal consistency of ERG22+ found a
coefficient of 0.80, indicating a high internal consistency
(Powis et. all, 2019).
The interview and survey instrument I’m proposing for research
consists of interviews and questions to answer: how and if
convicted terrorists were recruited in prison, how they were
managed (contained, dispersed, or mixed) as opposed to the
general population, and their overall impression on the
effectiveness of de-radicalization programs. There will be four

3. dimensions: crime committed, sentence length, perception of
treatment, and personal experiences. Participation will be
voluntary and anonymous (for fear of reprisal). The overall
goal of the findings from this mixed-method approach is to
compare the quantitative findings from the ERG22+ with the
interview/survey instrument that I’ve developed for further
validity and reliability. This, in my opinion, will further
empirical data to assist in the construct of further tools.
V/r,
Ian
Sources:
APUS. (2016) 1. Theoretical perspective: Quantitative,
qualitative, and mixed methods.
https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/security-and-global-
studies-common/Universal/SSGS/300/elf/lesson-
3/elf_index.html
APUS. (2016) 2. Reliability and Validity.
https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/security-and-global-
studies-common/Universal/SSGS/300/elf/lesson-
6/elf_index.html
Beverly Powis, Kiran Randhawa & Darren Bishopp (2019) An
Examination of the Structural Properties of the Extremism Risk
Guidelines (ERG22+): A Structured Formulation Tool for
Extremist Offenders, Terrorism and Political Violence, DOI:
10.1080/09546553.2019.1598392
Ellis, L., Hartley, R. D., & Walsh, A. (2009). Research methods
in criminal justice and criminology: An interdisciplinary
approach. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

4. Heide, L.V., Zwan, M.V., & Leyenhorst, M.V. (2019). The
Practitioner's Guide to the Galaxy - A Comparison of Risk
Assessment Tools for Violent Extremism.
Q2.
Reliability and validity are two major points of any type of
research. Determining reliability and validity of your research
can make or break an entire research project. Due to the
similarities these two topics are normally discussed together.
Along with these points are research instruments, which are
data collection tools. When conducting research, it is
imperative that data collection tools are used that are designed
for your research topic. This is important because using the
correct type of research instrument will help you research your
subject, along with give reliability and validity to your research
when analyzed.
Before you can use a research instrument, you need to be sure it
is a good fit. There are different types of research instruments
which include: self-designed instruments- this is not
recommended for armatures but is recommended for more
experienced researchers who have vast knowledge in their
subject. This type of instrument is self-designed to a specific
topic. Another type of self-designed instrument is qualitative
self-designed instruments. This is typically a set of questions
that was based around a particular subject. Next is Published
instruments. This is a type of instruments that others have
developed and are available to others for use. This type of
instrument may be popular, but it is cautioned that some may
view this as unreliable or invalid. Lastly, there is Modified
Instruments. This is a published instrument that has been
modified, to increase the validity of the instrument. An
example of this would be qualitative instruments, where the

5. information has been modified to fit a broader audience.
The best type of instrument that will be thought as reliable and
valid in my research topic of bullying in elementary schools
within Grovetown, GA, is Qualitative Instruments. The
majority of my research will be done observing, questioning and
discussing the topic of bullying with youth, parents, recreation
and education departments. Due to the fact that my research
topic is set around a particular age group of individuals, I can
direct my questions accordingly. The questions I ask can be
broad enough that all participants (youth, parents, teachers,
etc.) can answer, but specific enough to be reliable and valid
when readers are critiquing my research.
A way to test the instruments reliability is proving that it gives
consistent results. If there is inconsistency in the results a
research instrument produces, this will be deemed as
unreliable. In order to see the results, test and retesting of the
instrument needs to be conducted. There is also inter-rater and
inter-observer reliability. This is similar to testing consistency,
as with this you are testing different raters and or observers on
how consistent their answers are.
Validity is determined by reviewing if the sources or the
research are bias or based on popularity in any way. Any sway
to a bias thought or sway to the popular belief of most can
determine the research to be invalid. The best way to test this
is to be sure that random subjects are used as often as possible
to avoid bias.
Within my research of bullying in elementary schools in my
local area, validity will be determined by using random and
different subjects to interview and observe. By questioning
different departments, different parents, different children, all
focused on different aspects of bullying and youth, then the
validity will be proven to be unbias.