References and Further Reading
Australian Government Department of Health. (2003). The Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHWB). 2019, from //www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/mental-health/national-survey-mental-health-and-wellbeing-summary-results/2007
Bowers, D. a., Bewick, B., House, A., & Owens, D. (2013). Understanding clinical papers (Third edition. ed.): Wiley Blackwell.
Gravetter, F. J. a., & Forzano, L.-A. B. (2012). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (Fourth edition. ed.): Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Greenhalgh, T. a. (2014). How to read a paper : the basics of evidence-based medicine (Fifth edition. ed.): John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Hoffmann, T. a., Bennett, S. P., & Mar, C. D. (2017). Evidence-Based Practice Across the Health Professions (Third edition. ed.): Elsevier.
Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2008). Introduction to research methods in psychology (Second edition. ed.): Prentice Hall.
Kelly, P. J., Kyngdon, F., Ingram, I., Deane, F. P., Baker, A. L., & Osborne, B. A. (2018). The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire‐8: Psychometric properties in a cross‐sectional survey of people attending residential substance abuse treatment. Drug and Alcohol Review, 37(1), 79-86. doi: 10.1111/dar.12522
Lawrence, D., Hancock, K. J., & Kisely, S. (2013). The gap in life expectancy from preventable physical illness in psychiatric patients in Western Australia: retrospective analysis of population based registers. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 346(7909), 13-13.
Nasir, B. F., Toombs, M. R., Kondalsamy-Chennakesavan, S., Kisely, S., Gill, N. S., Black, E., Ranmuthugala, G., Ostini, R., Nicholson, G. C., Hayman, N., & Beccaria, G.. (2018). Common mental disorders among Indigenous people living in regional, remote and metropolitan Australia: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 8(6). //doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020196
Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research (Fourth Edition. ed.): Wiley.
Sedgwick, P. (2014). Cross sectional studies: advantages and disadvantages. BMJ : British Medical Journal, 348, g2276. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g2276
Setia, M. S. (2016). Methodology Series Module 3: Cross-sectional Studies. Indian journal of dermatology, 61(3), 261-264. doi: 10.4103/0019-5154.182410
Shafiei, T., Biggs, L. J., Small, R., McLachlan, H. L., & Forster, D. A. (2018). Characteristics of women calling the panda perinatal anxiety & depression australia national helpline: A cross-sectional study. Archives of Women's Mental Health. doi: 10.1007/s00737-018-0868-4
Van Heyningen, T., Honikman, S., Myer, L., Onah, M. N., Field, S., & Tomlinson, M. (2017). Prevalence and predictors of anxiety disorders amongst low-income pregnant women in urban South Africa: a cross-sectional study. Archives of Women's Mental Health(6), 765. doi: 10.1007/s00737-017-0768-z
Vogt, W. P. (2005). Dictionary of statistics & methodology : a nontechnical guide for the social sciences (Third edition. ed.): Sage Publications.
Study design depends greatly on the nature of the research question. In other words, knowing what kind of information the study should collect is a first step in determining how the study will be carried out (also known as the methodology).
Let’s say we want to investigate the relationship between daily walking and cholesterol levels in the body. One of the first things we’d have to determine is the type of study that will tell us the most about that relationship. Do we want to compare cholesterol levels among different populations of walkers and non-walkers at the same point in time? Or, do we want to measure cholesterol levels in a single population of daily walkers over an extended period of time?
The first approach is typical of a cross-sectional study. The second requires a longitudinal study. To make our choice, we need to know more about the benefits and purpose of each study type.
Cross-sectional study
Both the cross-sectional and the longitudinal studies are observational studies. This means that researchers record information about their subjects without manipulating the study environment. In our study, we would simply measure the cholesterol levels of daily walkers and non-walkers along with any other characteristics that might be of interest to us. We would not influence non-walkers to take up that activity, or advise daily walkers to modify their behaviour. In short, we’d try not to interfere.
The defining feature of a cross-sectional study is that it can compare different population groups at a single point in time. Think of it in terms of taking a snapshot. Findings are drawn from whatever fits into the frame.
To return to our example, we might choose to measure cholesterol levels in daily walkers across two age groups, over 40 and under 40, and compare these to cholesterol levels among non-walkers in the same age groups. We might even create subgroups for gender. However, we would not consider past or future cholesterol levels, for these would fall outside the frame. We would look only at cholesterol levels at one point in time.
The benefit of a cross-sectional study design is that it allows researchers to compare many different variables at the same time. We could, for example, look at age, gender, income and educational level in relation to walking and cholesterol levels, with little or no additional cost.
However, cross-sectional studies may not provide definite information about cause-and-effect relationships. This is because such studies offer a snapshot of a single moment in time; they do not consider what happens before or after the snapshot is taken. Therefore, we can’t know for sure if our daily walkers had low cholesterol levels before taking up their exercise regimes, or if the behaviour of daily walking helped to reduce cholesterol levels that previously were high.
Longitudinal study
A longitudinal study, like a cross-sectional one, is observational. So, once again, researchers do not interfere with their subjects. However, in a longitudinal study, researchers conduct several observations of the same subjects over a period of time, sometimes lasting many years.
The benefit of a longitudinal study is that researchers are able to detect developments or changes in the characteristics of the target population at both the group and the individual level. The key here is that longitudinal studies extend beyond a single moment in time. As a result, they can establish sequences of events.
To return to our example, we might choose to look at the change in cholesterol levels among women over 40 who walk daily for a period of 20 years. The longitudinal study design would account for cholesterol levels at the onset of a walking regime and as the walking behaviour continued over time. Therefore, a longitudinal study is more likely to suggest cause-and-effect relationships than a cross-sectional study by virtue of its scope.
In general, the research should drive the design. But sometimes, the progression of the research helps determine which design is most appropriate. Cross-sectional studies can be done more quickly than longitudinal studies. That’s why researchers might start with a cross-sectional study to first establish whether there are links or associations between certain variables. Then they would set up a longitudinal study to study cause and effect.
Source: At Work, Issue 81, Summer 2015: Institute for Work & Health, Toronto
This column updates a previous column describing the same term, originally published in 2009.