Research Gap and Background Section Revisions
📌 The research gap should be explicitly shown in the background section (Chapter 1), not in the statement of the problem, as the problem statement is a derivation of the gap.
📌 The concluding paragraph of the background section requires 1-2 strong closing sentences to bridge to the research objectives, summarizing the complexity of factors and justifying the study's necessity.
📌 Avoid abruptly ending the discussion on factors like celebrity influence; instead, link it to the need for further study on the relationship between e-cigarette use and anxiety in young adults.

Research Questions and Methodology Models
📌 Model 1 (Comparison): Comparing vapers (last 30 days) versus non-vapers on anxiety levels is easier for S1 level research due to simpler statistical analysis (like Chi-square) and easier respondent recruitment.
📌 Model 2 (Intensity): Measuring vaping intensity (frequency, duration, nicotine content) only among vapers is theoretically deeper (better for S2/journal level) but is more complex, involving regression analysis and justifying specific intensity indicators.
📌 Given the high rate of dual users (over 90%), Model 1 (Vaper vs. Non-Vaper status) is recommended as it is methodologically more robust and less prone to bias for this specific population.

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework and Instrument Validity
📌 The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) should be included as a supporting theory in Chapter 2, positioned under factors influencing e-cigarette use, not as the main theory explaining anxiety outcomes.
📌 For established instruments like HARS (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale), finding proof of Indonesian language validity is crucial; if unavailable, a local pilot test or adaptation (including back-translation and expert review) is required, especially if the original scale is clinician-rated, not self-report.
📌 If using established scales, reliability testing on the sample is often still required by universities, even if validity is established elsewhere.

Key Points & Insights
➡️ Ensure the Research Question clearly states "Is there a relationship between..." to maintain consistency with the associative design, avoiding the word "comparison" if the goal is association, not pure comparative assessment.
➡️ When describing dual users (vaping and conventional smoking), conventional smoking acts as a confounding variable that must be controlled in the analysis, not the primary focus of the research title or core discussion.
➡️ For sample size calculations in Model 1, account for the high percentage of dual users; if excluding them leads to a very small pure-vaper sample (e.g., 10%), the initial recruitment target must be significantly increased (e.g., from 96 to 960).

📸 Video summarized with SummaryTube.com on Jan 15, 2026, 15:15 UTC