GS41088 Laporan Akhir Viva Voce

SULIT (CONFIDENTIAL)

Lampiran 2 (Appendix 2)

LAPORAN PEPERIKSAAN AKHIR (VIVA VOCE)
[FINAL EXAMINATION (VIVA VOCE) REPORT]

FAKULTI/INSTITUT : FAKULTI PENGAJIAN PENDIDIKAN
Faculty/Institute
PROGRAM : ☐ PhD ☐ Master
Programme
NAMA PELAJAR : ONG SING YEE NO. : GS41088
Name of Student
MATRIK
TAJUK TESIS ASAL
Original Thesis Title Matric No.

: EFFECTIVENESS OF PARENT-ASSISTED CHILDREN’S FRIENDSHIP

TRAINING ON SOCIAL SKILLS, FRIENDSHIP QUALITY AND

LONELINESS AMONG CHILDREN WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM

DISORDER

TAJUK TESIS :
DICADANGKAN
Suggested Thesis Title

BIDANG PENGAJIAN : EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
ASAL
Original Field of Study :
BIDANG PENGAJIAN
YANG DICADANGKAN : PROF. MADYA DR. WAN MARZUKI BIN WAN JAAFAR
Suggested Field of Study : DR. NUR AIMI NASUHA BURHANUDDIN
PENGERUSI : 1) PROF. MADYA DR. TAJULARIPIN SULAIMAN
Chairman
PENOLONG PENGERUSI 2) PROF. DR. RUMAYA BT JUHARI
Assistant Chairman
PEMERIKSA DALAM
Internal Examiner

PEMERIKSA LUAR : 1) PROF. DR. BETH DOLL
External Examiner 2)

TEMPAT SECARA ATAS TALIAN (APLIKASI ZOOM)
Venue
TARIKH : 17 OGOS 2022 MASA : 9.00 PAGI
Date Time

UPM/SPS/LAPORAN PEPERIKSAAN AKHIR (VIVA VOCE) 1/3

LAPORAN (REPORT)

The Thesis Examination Committee (comprising two internal and external examiners, and a
chairperson) met on the above-mentioned date to deliberate on the student’s thesis examination
reports submitted by the examiners.

The committee heard the student’s presentation and this was followed by the examination of issues
raised by the examiners in their reports. The committee principle agreed to the following decision.

THESIS IS ACCEPTED WITH MAJOR MODIFICATIONS

The following amendments and changes have to be made before the final thesis is submitted to the
School of Graduate Studies within six (6) months after receiving the final report of the examination
(viva voce report):

GENERAL COMMENTS

Although the objectives of the study were met by the findings, the three examiners were consistent in
the assessment of the thesis by concluding that the thesis requires a much needed improvement in
the following:

i. the title of the thesis which does not reflected the claimed mixed method employed in the study;
ii. having a more focused Literature Review through a reduction or removal of parts of the literature

that is not pertinent to the study and focus more narrowly on children’s friendship, the difficulties
encountered by children with ASD, the interventions used to strengthened friendship among
children with ASD, parent-assisted CFT, and measures that has been used in the past to describe
children’s friendship competencies/friendship challenges;
iii. the design of the study is weak design that does not control well for internal or external threats to
validity. The methodology (i.e., mixed method) is unclear, therefore need justification and
highlight the rationale of using such method. In addition, the qualitative part of the study is also
lacking;
iv. the analyses were done independently therefore contradicted with the claimed of using mixed
methodology

The following are specific recommendations made during the viva.

A. TITLE

The titles should be modified to reflect the actual study that was conducted. The title does not
reflect the claimed methodology which is mixed method. Need to change because the word
effectiveness represents quantitative side and not so much on the qualitative part.

B. ABSTRACT

The abstract need revision for the Bahasa Melayu version. Some statements do not have similar
meaning. Need to revise the abstract in terms of language. The mixed method design is also
unclear and need further justification

UPM/SPS/LAPORAN PEPERIKSAAN AKHIR (VIVA VOCE) 2/3

C. METHODOLOGY

Please explain where in the study that actually mixed. Does the qualitative part help to
understand the intervention? What is the use of qualitative component in this study? It is not
explained in chapter 1, to make it eligible and justify its importance. What is the rational of using
qualitative method in this study? Is there any reference to justify using this method in this
current study?

The very simple quantitative design is a weak design that does not control well for internal or
external threats to validity. The single-group pre-test/post-test design makes it impossible for the
researcher to identify or quantify any causal relationship between the intervention and the
outcomes. It is impossible for the researcher to determine whether any differences that are
detected are due to the parents’ increased familiarity with and interest in pleasing the
researcher, due to simple maturation (the children were all older at post-test), due to parents’
increased focus on friendships, or due to the procedures of the intervention. A delayed-treatment
control group design would have been a better design and might have been accommodated with
the same number of participants.

Table 3.2 (Controlling internal validity threats) is confusing because (1) some sources of invalidity
that were identified are only relevant to a study with at least two groups, while this study used
only a single group; (2) some of the ‘measures to control’ listed would not provide ample control
over the source of invalidity. It was not altogether clear how many groups were convened except
that (1) there were 30 participants altogether; (2) separate groups were held for younger and
older children; (3) groups ranged in size from 6-10 members.

Justification is needed to why the researcher use only one group in this experimental study

D. TECHNICAL WORKING CHAPTERS

In Chapter 1, the research problem addressed in this study is relatively narrow: to what degree
can a parent-assisted intervention strengthen friendships of children with autism. Objectives 2, 3
and 4 would have been sufficient to define the study. These objectives are clearly stated and are
reflected well within the study design and results. The addition of Objectives 1, 5 and 6 provided
an unnecessary complication to the study, diluted the time and attention paid to objectives 2-4,
and made it difficult for the researcher to focus attention on the central variables of the research.

The problem statement also stated Parental role in assisting children with ASD through parent-
assisted CFT program. However, the parental component is not embedded in the entire thesis.
Also, more explanation is needed on parent-assisted CFT program. Why is it important? Need to
highlight this. In terms of background, all variables stated in title was discussed in the
background. However, the criteria that the researcher consider when conducting the treatment is
unclear hence, detail explanation is required. In addition, the actual problem with parent-assisted
CFT is also unclear. What is the actual problem with parent-assisted CFT? what is the main issue
that trigger the researcher to develop this intervention? Explanation on this questions need to be
include in the writing.

Chapter 2 lack in critical review to the point where it can form a framework of the study
undertaken. A more comprehensive literature review is much needed.

In Chapter 4, the analyses were done independently hence the claimed mixed methodology
employed in this study is highly questionable

UPM/SPS/LAPORAN PEPERIKSAAN AKHIR (VIVA VOCE) 3/3

The researcher needs to emphasize the importance of parent assisted CFT intervention since it
was highlighted in the qualitative part of the study by some of the participants. It is also noted
that there is no analysis for teachers in Hypothesis 2 and 3. Please justify this. In qualitative part,
avoid using RQ as the subtopic.

Does the assistant help with the intervention? Please explain and justify the use of assistant in
helping the child with ASD during the intervention as it can affect/influence the findings of the
study. In addition, the researcher needs to see the different element on the intervention. See
how the parents respond to the program. Reporting only on the challenges is insufficient.

Results of the quantitative evaluation are described with 7 analyses for the parent-evaluated
social skill subscales and 7 analyses for the teacher-evaluated social skill subscales. The
researcher used simple descriptive statistics and a t-test for comparisons. With this number of
comparisons, the researcher should have used a Bonferroni Correction to correct for multiple
comparisons. Instead, an over-generous decision rule was used based on Cohen’s effect sizes
with a significance level of .05 or less. As a result, it is believed that the researcher seriously
overinterpreted the results. Relatively small gains in these measures could be accounted for by
the parents’ and teachers’ knowledge that the child was participating in a project intended to
improve their friendship skills.

A typo is also noted on page 150, last paragraph. This paragraph describes a test of the
effectiveness of CFT for assertion skills as evaluated by parents and not by teachers.

Misstatements when describing teachers’ ratings of children’s empathy skills (p. 156): It is not
correct to say that the children did improve in empathy skills because this comparison was non-
significant. It is correct to say that parent assisted CFT does not significantly improve the
empathy skills of children with ASD. Similarly, for teachers’ ratings of children’s engagement
skills: It is not correct to say that the children did improve in engagement skills because this
comparison was non-significant. It is correct to say that parent assisted CFT does not
significantly improve the engagement skills of children with ASD.

The qualitative evaluation was collected with a convenience sample of the 9 parents who were
able to devote the necessary time and schedule to the evaluation. However, it is difficult to
determine whether it can be generalized more broadly since the issues raised by parents (time
constraints) are the same issues that discouraged some parents from participating (time
constraints). It is not clear how the determination was made that the finalized maps were a
better fit to the qualitative data and it is not clear how broadly the themes that were identified
were endorsed in the larger sample. Some themes could have represented the perspective of a
single parent participant.

It also appears to be the case that the researcher conducted the CFT sessions, collected all
measures, conducted the qualitative interviews, and transcribed and coded the interviews. This
raises significant concerns about the cross contamination of the data and the interpretations.

E. TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 4.7 page 153, the table shows T test, what is the significant level for this test? The
significant level needs to be stated in the table. Need to put * or ** to be clear.

For the other tables, pictures and summarized information are properly labelled and sequenced.
However, there was considerable confusion about the location of information between Chapter 2

UPM/SPS/LAPORAN PEPERIKSAAN AKHIR (VIVA VOCE) 4/3

and Chapter 5. Chapter 5 included considerable new information about friendship interventions
and the measures and used this new information to interpret the results of this study. It would
have expected that information about prior research to be located in Chapter 2, and expected
Chapter 5 to focus on the meaning of results of this study

F. REFERENCES

The references acceptable however some are not following APA format. Please amend using the
latest APA format.

G. OTHER CORRECTIONS

The appendix in the thesis is too thick. It is not appropriate since the appendix is almost 200
pages, please look back and consider including only those that are important in this thesis.

Prepared by

(Dr. Nur Aimi Nasuha Burhanuddin)

UPM/SPS/LAPORAN PEPERIKSAAN AKHIR (VIVA VOCE) 5/3