Critique of Research DesignThe purpose of this critique is to analyze the design of a research study conducted by; Donna Kazemi, Maureen Levine, Jacek Dmochowski, Mary Nies, and Linman Sun defined “Effects of Motivational Interviewing Intervention on Blackouts Among College Freshmen.” It was accepted on January 21, 2013 and was published in the Journal of Nursing Scholarship. This study was conducted on 188 volunteer freshmen at a southern university. Kazemi et al. (2013) state that the objectives of the study were to see whether motivational interviewing (MI) worked as an effective intervention to reduce blackouts among freshmen, who engaged in high-risk alcohol or drug use, during a period of sixth month. Additionally, the study looked to see if there was an association between blackouts among freshmen based on race or gender. The research design was a longitudinal study in which students were administered motivational interviewing (MI) as an intervention at baseline, two weeks, and three months. six-month periods while enrolled in school. Assessments of participants' alcohol consumption and blackouts were taken on the baseline day and after six months. The researchers assessed changes in the number of participants in terms of blackouts, alcohol or drug use (Kazemi et al., 2013). In this study, a longitudinal design was used to monitor the same participants for six months. A threat to the validity of this project may be the abandonment of participants. This may be attributed to the length of a longitudinal study. However, in this study the researchers managed to keep all the participants. The researchers asked all participants in advance whether they could engage in all four sessions, and if not, they were not used as part of the study. Therefore, all 188 selected participants completed the entire program (Kazemi et al., 2013). The validity of the longitudinal design also depends on the use of pre-established time intervals that make sense with the research performed. This study does not explicitly say how the intervals for MI instruction were chosen. Furthermore, the study does not explain why or how the intervals for the pre- and post-assessments were decided. This is important because previous research may have indicated how long it takes for MI to be successful and at what intervals it should be performed to produce the best outcomes for participants. This data may have changed the study duration or time intervals and potentially changed the results. Additionally, the time intervals for the design did not mention how the academic calendar and student free time may have affected the data collected at certain intervals..