Critical Review of Peer Reviewed Journal

 

This journal article, Secondary Learning and the Unintended Benefits of Collaborative Mechanisms: The Federal Aviation Administration’s Voluntary Disclosure Programs, was in my field of interest and study.  Published in Regulation and Governance trade journal, I was able to relate to the subject matter throughout the article.  This article is well organized as all components that are expected in a professional article have been systematically organized: Abstract (with keywords), Introduction, Methodology, Table and Conclusion.  The sections have been well-developed all the way through.  Starting with the title, the authors’ work is concisely described and reflected.

 

Abstract

The Abstract succinctly briefs the reader as to what the paper will entail.  The authors explain to the reader that the advantages of voluntary disclosure programs provide regulatory agencies with valuable information on risks that exist in the airline industry as well as situations and areas of non-compliance.  The incentives that are offered for disclosures include immunity from prosecution or reductions in enforcement penalization.  Subsequently mentioned, as the article title reveals, is the introduction to the concept of secondary learning through disclosures.  This is done through two case studies with the Federal Aviation Administration’s voluntary disclosure programs: the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) and the Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program (VDRP).  The reasoning of the abstract is well served by giving the reader an insight to ascertain the paper’s purpose.

 

Keywords

The Keywords used were “aviation”, “process-oriented aviation”, “regulatory inspections”, “secondary learning”, and “voluntary disclosure”.  Although some readers may find “aviation” to be slightly generic in this context, the remaining words assembled would be satisfactory to use in a search engine.

 

Introduction

The introduction retains the attention of the reader by describing in detail the background of the subject matter.  The authors explain that regulatory agencies have traditionally used command and control modes for regulation.  But now collaborative tools such as voluntary disclosure programs are becoming increasingly popular with governmental agencies.  The authors explain that these programs are “extremely controversial”, however, at this point they do not go into detail as to why.  They explain the benefits of organizations, companies, and disciplines voluntarily reporting their own violations for “reduced sanctions” as well as the opportunity to collaborate with the regulators to repair or mitigate problems or issues.  This is a win-win situation for the regulators as these programs increase the amount of available information at a very low cost to the agency.  As the reader progresses through the introduction, the authors now mention that scholars have criticized the programs as giving agencies a free ride that without command and control mechanisms to supplement them, is “completely ineffective”.  Again, a further elaboration of the minus points could help accentuate the positives later.  The authors are successful in giving the reader solid background information regarding the voluntary reporting systems to regulators.

The focus of the paper, however, is to highlight the unconsidered (i.e. side) benefits of the program: The secondary learning that occurs above and beyond that of violation information.  The authors define secondary learning as “those details often invisible to those outside an organization or inside the organization but not ‘on the ground’.” 

The researchers base the results in their article on two questions:  Firstly, “Is there evidence that secondary learning occurs within voluntary disclosure programs?”  And secondly, “What are the structural elements of voluntary disclosure programs that lead to a more effective and complete exchange of secondary information?”  With these comprehensive questions, they are able to provide themselves with the framework to move forth in their research in conjunction with the FAA’s ASAP and VDRP programs. 

 

The article continues in a well-organized manner with well-developed sections.  As the benefits of voluntary disclosure to regulatory agencies has been stated.  The authors continue with the assertion of benefits to air carriers.  These include industry reduced enforcement and sanctions, increased flexibility, and access to government-funded technical assistance.  Other side benefits mentioned through scholarly references include a positive reputation with the public as being seen as socially responsible and safe.  The regulators also benefit from public perception as being seen as “good guys”. 

 

 

Literature Review

 

The authors synthesize the literature in a well-organized manner by using their reference sources with quotations to solidify their objectives.  For example, when justifying yet another reason why regulatory agencies should embrace voluntary disclosure, they quote Pfaff & Sanchirico (2000), “…the best information is in the hands of the industry, and it is difficult to obtain without cooperation.”  Quotes from one scholar are often supplemented with those of other scholars: “Voluntary disclosure programs should at the very least help regulators overcome access issues by increasing available information about regulatory violations and potential problems (Lyon & Maxwell, 2007).”

 

After a solid background is given regarding voluntary disclosure, the article continues to point out that industry managers often face challenges in monitoring and understanding lower level employees which may be due to improper communication channels or even changes in personnel.  Therefore the FAA voluntary disclosure programs are designed to allow joint ventures and secondary learning due to the industry’s common objective of improving safety.  These collaborative efforts also result in the building of trust in relationships of the parties involved.  Within the article, the authors develop a definition of secondary learning in voluntary disclosure programs by revealing the presence of secondary learning in the operation of two voluntary disclosure programs operated in conjunction with the FAA: ASAP and VDRP.  This secondary learning gives key input to management as to areas of potential risk at the operational level of the company.

 

Only the two programs are examined by the authors.  And as it may have beneficial to examine (at least) one more, the authors confidently claim that the two programs alone accurately identify which structural elements of voluntary disclosure programs lead to secondary learning.

 

 

Methodology

 

Perhaps one of the more interesting and unique aspects of this study is the methodology used.  The researchers explain their methodology in a clear and succinct manner.  The ASAP and VDRP studies were used because these voluntary disclosure programs differ in several key areas that can assist in assessing which area, as well as to what degree, secondary learning is taking place during the interaction between the FAA and air carrier employees.  The authors state that the FAA has historically had a “close” relationship with commercial aviation.  They leave their statement slightly ambiguous without any reference as to how they came to this conclusion. 

 

13 observations and two interviews were used in the data collection process.  Although this showed a positive approach to sampling by not limiting the method to only one type, the authors limited the sampling to only two major legacy carriers, one low-cost carrier, and one regional carrier.  The authors laud their choices as a broad sampling of the air carrier industry.  However they do not recognize that there was no representation of the cargo carriers as well as the non-scheduled supplemental airlines.  These latter two are noteworthy contributors to the industry and their inclusion may have resulted in a broader, and perhaps more accurate, range of industry-represented data.

 

The interviewees from the air carrier side were chosen through a snowball approach as recommended by the FAA participants involved.  As this may be seen as an easier task at hand for the researchers, it could be argued that perhaps a more random approach of sampling may have yielded a broader range of participants from the air carriers.  Having said this, the recommended individuals for the interviews were all intimate with the ASAP and VRDP programs and thus the authors may argue that this snowball method was indeed the preferred method for data collection.

 

The “key” interviewees were specifically chosen for their roles in the programs.  It cannot be disputed that these regulators were well-qualified for this study.  FAA representatives interviewed included three FAA headquarter staff who were responsible for designing and implementing ASAP and VDRP, four FAA field inspectors responsible for overseeing ASAP and VDRP at four different airlines, four different air carrier managers responsible for implementing ASAP and VDRP, one NASA official responsible for analyzing ASAP data, and one aviation trade association official who was responsible for creating VRDP and who has experience in implementing both programs. 

 

Each recorded interview lasted between one to one and a half hours.  Other participant interviewee groups included air carrier ASAP representatives, FAA Certificate Management Office principal maintenance inspectors, flight standards voluntary safety branch personnel, as well as other groups which the authors felt would make worthy contributions.  As previously stated, and arguably, a more random sampling may have been considered versus the snowball approach to gathering participants.  Although the questions asked were from a pre-orchestrated interview protocol, interviewees had the freedom to take the interview in any direction they chose.

 

The researchers ensured that their data were comprehensive by including secondary sources consisting of scholarly sources, media accounts of the ASAP and VDRP programs, as well as documentation from Congressional hearings, reports from the General Accountability Office (GAO) and Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOT-IG).  All data collected from both interviews were analyzed using an open coding scheme that was developed to gain insight into behavior by regulators and airline officials in both programs.  The researchers triangulated the coded interview data with the secondary source data to derive an in-depth examination and analysis of the ASAP and VDRP.

 

As the well-explained methodology concludes, the authors continue the article by giving a background of the FAA’s mode of operation.  They explain in relative detail of how the FAA historically used a command and control approach towards regulation, but later changed to a more process-oriented approach to the safety oversight of air carriers.  Although a respectable amount of information is offered on this topic, references are limited. 

 

After a comprehensive background briefing, the authors elaborate on two central focuses of the study, the ASAP and VDRP.  They explain the Aviation Safety Action Program as a voluntary disclosure program allowing airline employees to report safety events to the FAA and to their managers without the FAA or the air carrier taking punitive action against the employee based on the information in the report.  The Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program is subsequently defined as a program that offers airlines reduced regulatory enforcement actions if they voluntarily report systemic problems within their operational structure and work collaboratively with their local FAA office on designing a solution to the problem.  In short, the ASAP protects the employee while the VDRP protects the air carrier and the ASAP involves particular events while the latter involves problems that are systemic.  The authors give full, detailed explanations of both programs.

 

Although the authors mention that the information disclosed is protected from the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), they do not mention why it is protected from public disclosure.  This slightly ambiguous mention could be clarified to the more detail-oriented, and uninformed, reader that this information is exempt from public disclosure because 14 CFR Part 193 (Protection of Voluntarily Submitted Information), i.e. voluntary submissions, are protected from the public under this act.

 

One tertiary benefit of ASAP and VDRP mentioned is that this voluntary reporting helps the FAA because of scarce instructor resources.  Albeit critics may declare that this revelation may overshadow the hiring of more inspectors.  Although this can initiate a noteworthy debate, it is outside the scope of this research project.

 

An airline’s Continuous Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS) team, i.e. quality assurance personnel, are responsible for conducting internal audits and collecting data from the ASAP and VRDP programs to identify hazards, trends, and anomalies in the system.  These programs provide both airline management and FAA with valuable information about potential risks that may exist within the airline’s operating system.  More notably, the programs offer the local FAA office valuable insight into the air carrier for which they have oversight.  Detailed examples of this are repeatedly given in the article. 

 

One particular example of secondary learning that is given was the result of the deep involvement with pilots involved in the ASAP program.  Air carrier managers became aware that safety messages through cell phones or emails are not an effective way to provide up-to-date safety information to the pilots:  “…between flights they have got a lot going on in their lives and they are not as inclined to pick up a safety publication and read it thoroughly like we think they should for a variety of reasons… (Our) pilots are all signed up for company email, but very few of them check it.”

 

Just the same, the authors provide examples backing up their statements that the VRDP also provides an important source of secondary information to the FAA.  They continue to assert that the FAA is exposed to internal decision making within the carrier as to what decisions would be feasible, in the airline’s opinion, and what decisions would not be—and why not.  Perhaps one of the more explicit revelations is that the local FAA office gains insight into the overall safety culture of the air carrier’s upper management.  Air carrier decisions are openly negotiated and discussed in front of the FAA throughout the VRDP process. 

 

The authors mention that critics in both the air carriers and FAA may find it cumbersome that two programs are doing the same thing and thus together are inefficient.  This would be an ideal place for the authors to reemphasize a major, relevant different between the two programs: ASAP is an individual or employee-level reporting program, while VDRP is a company-wide reporting program.  An amenity to the article is a nicely constructed table by the authors that is inserted to sum up many of the differences between the ASAP and VDRP and clearly explain how each program works.  As the explanations can get lengthy, this table serves as a clear summation of the two.

 

As the subject matter discussed in the article can be intricate, especially to the non-aviation reader, one of the strongest attributes the authors have demonstrated in this article is clarifying points through examples.  While several are used, they are all effective. 

 

As the authors set out to answer their questions about secondary learning, their research and findings, it is clear that their objective is met.  An investigators role is to connect their theory to the data.  The authors in this case have successfully done so through their research.   

 

Throughout the article, the authors use language that is easy to understand and aimed at audiences from non-aviation backgrounds.  These are noted in parenthetical examples such as, “We were arriving STL [St. Louis International Airport] and had a big tailwind. We were

cleared via the KAYLA [name for a navigation aid or waypoint] arrival…” i.e. STL and KAYLA are explained for the non-aviation reader who may unlikely be able to understand these.  The grammar, punctuation, and diction throughout the article are professional, although I did find a word misspelled that should not have been overlooked in an article published in a professional journal such Regulation and Governance, e.g. the word recurrence had been misspelled as reccurrence (p. 443, 2^nd para.)  Clearly an oversight, it was the only one I found.  Overall, the article is well-written.

 

Most importantly, the authors are convincing through their findings.  Although they do make mention of other agency programs such as the Securities Exchange Commission’s Consolidated Supervised Entities program, no reference is made of some other more relevant aviation-related programs such as NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). 

 

Lastly, although it is mentioned how these voluntary reporting systems can be applied to other industries, the authors do not mention applying it to other sectors in aviation such as large corporate flight departments and non-scheduled operators.  This could be an area of examination and analysis for future research.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The authors are succinct in their conclusion that these programs can help build a “reservoir” of information that both regulators and managers can use in the future to evaluate reports and suggest solutions and regulations.  The building of trust between related parties is once again emphasized.

 

My recommendation for this article is that of acceptance with the optional minor revisions mentioned herein.  The authors keep the reading interesting while sufficiently adding to one’s knowledge base while adhering to the standards of the Regulation and Governance journal. 

 

I also recommend that this article be used for future research for investigators and SMS professionals seeking to implement similar programs in other global regions within their own regulatory structure.

 

 

Reference Cited

Mills, R & Reiss D.R. (2014). Secondary learning and the unintended

benefits of collaborative mechanisms: The Federal Aviation Administration’s voluntary

disclosure programs. Regulation & Governance, (pp. 437–454).

Some Career Opportunities in the Aviation Industry

 

Around the world, the aviation industry, directly and indirectly, supports about 87.7 million jobs. And with the growth of technology, experts predict a further surge in the need for professionals in this industry. Its fast-growing nature offers various career options requiring diverse skills and qualifications. These career options include but are not limited to aviation management, commercial piloting, traffic control, quality control, and aerospace engineering.

Working as an airline pilot is a popular career option for people venturing into aviation. These professionals are responsible for transporting passengers safely and supervising other crew staff. The flexible working schedules and lucrative pay are some of the perks of this job. However, to become a pilot, a person must be above 18 years, have the required license, pass the necessary psychological and aptitude tests, and gain flight experience.

Air traffic control is another viable career option in aviation. Aviation traffic controllers are experts in regulating and monitoring aircraft movement and the entire air traffic system. They communicate with pilots and instruct them on how to navigate. They also ensure aircraft maintain a safe distance between them and update pilots on necessary information like the weather conditions. Air traffic control is a high-stress and high-responsibility job. Professionals must thus be detail-oriented, have strong decision-making and verbal communication skills, and be able to work under intense pressure.

Flight attendants work on a flight and are responsible for keeping passengers safe and comfortable. They inspect emergency equipment, ensure adherence to flight rules and regulations, provide assistance and safety information, and serve meals to passengers. To become a flight attendant, one must have great communication skills, patience, a neat appearance, and be able to multitask. They must also obtain a license and be willing to travel for work.

Aerospace engineers are a significant part of the aviation industry. These professionals design and develop aircraft and space vehicles. They research various design concepts, test prototypes, and ensure they function according to the design. Aerospace engineers are usually well-versed in thermodynamics, aerodynamics, and celestial mechanisms. They typically possess degrees in relevant fields such as mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering, or software engineering. This field has also continued to evolve with technological advancements, especially in developing more environment-friendly designs.

Quality control officers are professionals responsible for ensuring that materials and equipment used in aircraft manufacturing meet safety and quality standards. These professionals inspect the various stages and parts of the manufacturing process using sophisticated tools and produce reports on their inspections. Quality control officers must be detail-oriented and have extensive knowledge of the necessary materials for manufacturing. They are necessary for ensuring the quality and safety of the aircraft.

Aviation management is also a crucial and complex field in the aviation industry. Aviation managers engage in personnel management, airport operations, and account management. They are responsible for daily airline operations and maintain records and work schedules. Aviation managers must have proper knowledge of the industry and be able to navigate the changes of its constantly evolving operations. It is a dynamic field that requires technical, management, and leadership skills.

St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital - Ways to Help

 Established over 50 years ago, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital dedicates its resources and efforts to researching and treating pediatric catastrophic conditions to advance cures and ways of prevention. St. Jude has treated children across the United States and worldwide. When the research hospital was founded in 1962, the childhood cancer survival rate was at 20 percent – currently, treatments invented at St. Jude helped this rate rise to more than 80 percent. St. Jude has never sent a bill for its patients' families, nor for treatment, housing, travel, or food. Instead, unlike other hospitals, most funding comes from individual donations and fundraising contributions.

There are several ways to get involved with St. Jude Children's Research Hospital. For example, it is possible to make a donation every month and become a Partner in Hope. Monthly donors can start with a donation of $5 or more, and they can change or cancel their gift at any time. In addition, St. Jude sends exclusive communications to Partners in Hope so they can keep track of the research progress – donors also get an annual printed calendar. Finally, if the donation is over $19 monthly, Partners in Hope also receive a T-shirt in their chosen design.

Additionally, there is a possibility to make a one-time gift, and donate, create a fund or leave a legacy in the memory of the life of a loved one. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital is also on AmazonSmile, so it is possible to help by choosing St. Jude as the AmazonSmile charity so that Amazon donates 0.5 percent of each eligible purchase. Legacy and planned giving are other ways to give. The donor can choose between planning a gift for tomorrow, donating today, or even leaving a legacy to support the Hospital's mission.

Fundraising is another way St. Jude funds children's treatment and research developments, and the community can help by creating their fundraiser event. For example, St. Jude's website states that $114 in funds can help provide wagons to help St. Jude's patients get around the Hospital. On the other hand, $228 can help provide a share of chemotherapy for patients, while $684 could help pay for food and other necessities for 10 St. Jude's families.

There are many ways to fundraise for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, such as by creating a Facebook fundraiser (the Hospital's website features step-by-step instructions for that.) Other ways include promoting or joining a sports or fitness event that supports the Hospital; or joining a St. Jude auction event or gala, which are hosted virtually around the country. Individuals and teams can also choose to dedicate a special life moment, such as a birthday, or honor someone special while raising funds to support the Hospital's patients and families.

St. Jude also hosts the Dream Home giveaway to raise funds and fulfill its mission. The giveaway's prize is a house, and one can buy tickets in 44 cities across the US. Some sponsors of the Dream Home giveaway include companies such as Bosch, Brizo, Kichler, and Shaw Floors. Sponsors donate materials, time, and expertise to build the houses that St. Jude will give to the winners. Additionally, sponsors can also become TV and print media partners to help St. Jude spread the word about its mission and the giveaway program.

Review of Statistical Analysis Concepts

 

 

We know of testing as a form of evaluation, assessment, or measurement.  As we research the subject further, we find that there are many types of tests, or methods of measurement, that can be used. 

Of paramount concern for an investigator is deciding what method to use which will provide reliable and valid data.  There are several methods available depending upon the research question to be answered. 

Whichever test is chosen for behavior assessment—i.e. data collection, it must be able to specifically serve a purpose as well as accurately differentiate between variables such as intelligence, affection, emotion, and activity.  While useful in placement and selection, tests will help the investigator determine the outcome of the experiment while also contributing input for evaluation of the program outcome. 

Among questions that should be asked when determining which type of test administer would be “is the assessed behavior physical, social or cognitive?” or “will their behavior be observed by trained data collectors or be self-reported through methods such as questionnaires, or will there be interviews?”, “is there a time limit?”, “is it subjective or objective?”, “individual or group?”, and “will the questions be multiple choice or open-ended?” 

Different types of tests that can be used are Achievement tests, Standardized tests, Researcher/Teacher-made tests, Norm-referenced tests, and Criterion-based tests. 

Multiple choice tests can be use to assess most areas.  They are easy to use for the participants and easy to score by the researchers.  A well-written test will provide accurate results.  Ill-advised situations for using these types of test would be when there is a broad content of information to be assessed or if participant writing skills are to be part of the evaluation process.  Perhaps one of the greatest advantages of using a multiple-choice test is that it positively differentiates between those who know and do not know the material being presented.  Item analysis is used to differentiate the difficulty level as well as the discrimination level.  The Difficulty index is a measure of the proportion of examinees who answered the item correctly.  It is also referred to as the p-value.  Discrimination index refers to how well an assessment differentiates between high and low scorers.

As achievement tests are likely to be used most often, Attitude tests are used to assess a person’s opinion regarding an object, individual, or event.  Two popular achievement tests are the Thurstone scale test, or method of equal-appearing intervals, which is an attitude scale consisting of items in the form of statements with which the respondent has either to agree or disagree. The second is the Likert scale test, also known as the method of summated ratings, which is an attitude scaling method in which respondents indicate the extent of their agreement with each item on a, say, five or seven point scale.  Their score on the scale is the sum of the scores for each item.  The latter is easy to develop and considered the most widely used.

When necessary to assess individual behavior patterns, two types of Personality tests are used: Projective and Structured.

As the methods discussed thus far have the participants acting as the active agents, there is another data collection method where the investigator becomes the active agent: Observation.  Different techniques used to recorder participants’ behavior include duration, frequency, interval, and continuous.  Each has their own purpose and come with their merits and possible drawbacks.  However whichever technique is used, it is imperative to remain clear of the behavior that is being recorded in order to minimize interference with the participants. 

Questionnaires also have a rightful place in data collection for many reasons.  They can be used to survey a broad geographical area and, in comparison to interviews, are inexpensive and can yield more truthful answers due to the anonymity involved.  Questionnaires, to be effective, come with the burden that they can be cumbersome and time-consuming to develop.  But as long as the basic assumptions and a systematic format are used during development, it can be an invaluable tool for collecting data.

An accompanying professional cover letter from the researcher(s) and academic sources such as professors, advisors, or institutions will show credibility to participants when soliciting their help for the study.

 Next, the process of data collection is an important process that, when planned and exercised correctly, will ease the investigator’s task during later stages.  It is systematic process that involves four steps: Construction of the data form, designation of the coding strategy, collection of the actual data, and entry onto the data collection form.

As data collection can be the most time-consuming part of the research process, Salkind (2012) has assembled his Ten Commandments of Data Collection which serve as detailed guidelines to ensure quality data collection methods as well as avoid potential errors during the process.

Once the data has been gathered, it must be analyzed.  For this, the researcher(s) should have a solid understanding of statistics.  Two basic types of statistics must be understood: descriptive and inferential. 

Descriptive statistics quantitatively describe the basic features of a collection of information (i.e. the data).  There are several terms in descriptive statistics that must be thoroughly understood and appreciated.  For this, it is most likely that most researchers would have been educated in at least a basic university-level statistics course.  Terms that require a demonstrated understanding include distribution of scores and measures of central tendency.  Measures of central tendency contain a further subset of terms such as mean, median, and mode.  Researchers must not only be intimate with these measures and the understanding of them, but must be well-versed in knowing when to use each one.

There are also measures of variability that must be understood.  Variability refers to the extent to which data points differ from each other.  There are four commonly used measures of variability: range, mean, variance and standard deviation.  In addition to these terms, an understanding is required of concepts such as the normal curve.  Also known as the bell-shaped curve, this curve plotted on a graph represents how variables are distributed.  Also involved are standard scores.  These scores, that have both the same reference point and standard deviation, are also referred to as z scores.  These z scores are necessary for the comparison of raw scores from various distributions while representing a particular location along the X-axis of a graph.

Equally important to descriptive statistics is the intimate understanding of inferential statistics.  Inferential statistics allow the researcher to use data samples to make decisions about the populations from which the samples were taken.  As earlier mentioned, this demonstrates the importance of the collected data sample accurately representing the population. 

In inference, chance plays a noteworthy role.  Chance is defined as “the occurrence of variability which cannot be accounted for by any of the variables that you are studying.”  Another key attribute to inference is the central limit theorem which states that the means of all samples selected from the population will be normally distributed regardless of the shape of the distribution—whether it is normal or not.  However for this theorem to be successful, the sample size must be greater than 30.  Because the process of sampling in not perfect, the process of sampling error is introduced.

Another important part of inferential statistics is statistical significance—also known as Type I error.  This is described as the degree of risk that the researchers are willing to take to reject a null hypothesis when it is true.  The level of significance, also known as alpha, is the risk in making this type of error. 

There are many different situations applying statistical tests.  Examples include noting average differences between two groups when measurements in the two groups are unrelated (i.e. independent).  Statistical tests can also be applied to groups that are not independent—such as a group of pilots, etc.  The tests would simply be administered at different times to note changes.

There are also techniques for working with more than one variable such as multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA).    MANOVA takes into account the relationship between the dependent variables.  This advanced technique resembles a series of simpler statistical tests for independent means called t-tests. 

Another technique that can be used is called factor analysis.  This is also an advanced technique that allows the researchers to reduce the number of variables that are representative of a group and then use factor scores as dependent variables.

Lastly, there is a statistical technique known as meta-analysis that is used to combine, condense and simplify the findings from several independent studies on the same topic that used the same dependent variable.  This is an excellent tool to establish statistical significance with studies that have conflicting results.

Reference

Salkind, N.J. (2012). Exploring Research (8th ed.).  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.