Understanding Research and Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders: A Primer for Students and Practitioners

I bought this book for my graduate research class. If you already like to do research or in general feel that you do not need to be convinced, this book is incredibly wordy. While its well put together, I feel it could get its point across in much fewer pages.

This is a great resource. It's written in a very easy to understand way.

Excellent product and service

Good Rental as described

The product was exactly what I expected and it arrived so quickly! Thank you! :)

Excellent condition!

In the first chapter the authors quote Ronald Reagan, describe someone as a "gas bag," and mention getting funding for "audiotapes." The authors spend pages describing basic concepts that could be thoroughly described in a couple sentences - talk about gas bags... Most of the first chapter is trying to convince their audience that research is an an accessible path to all and not limited to a few elite, but they sure sound like the elite when they say, "So the bottom line is that our research is not esoteric and anathema to clinical work..." Anathema?! I think part of my negative reaction to this book is that the authors spend so much time early on saying this book is different and not burdensome like others. The wordiness and out-of-touch language used in this book makes it very unfriendly to the Millenial and Gen Z generation. Professors, I recommend - no beg - you continue in your search for a research textbook and spare your students experiencing this one. To the authors, to put it succinctly, young folk don't like Reagan, don't say gas bag, and we don't use audiotapes.- Sincerely, the intended audience of this textbook (also a Millenial)Update: More painful sentiments from this text: Regarding the Manhattan Project (pg. 58): "Was this good or bad? Some Japanese people would probably say it was bad. Some Americans would say it was good because it allegedly shortened the war in the Pacific and ultimately saved American and Japanese lives. One can easily see both sides of this moral judgement." Can one? Is it easy to see any upside to the loss of over 100,000 lives? Also the author provides an argument for why an American might see it as good, but not why "Japanese people" (or any decent person, for that matter) might see it as bad. The author, while preaching about bias, can hardly contain his own.