NGR5810 Theories in nursing

Two components of this assignment:

1. Discussion of the Differences Between Quantitative and Qualitative Research

Please provide a discussion/explanation to the 7 following essay questions with references included in your answer and with strict APA format:

1. How does a research problem/question guide the determination to conduct a quantitative versus a qualitative research study?

2. Discuss the value of using a conceptual framework or theory (grand or mid-range) to guide a quantitative research study.

3. Address the debate of the appropriateness of using of a conceptual framework or theory to guide a qualitative research study.

4. What specific types of research designs are used in quantitative research?

5. What specific types of designs are used in qualitative research?

6. What are differences in determining sample size between quantitative and qualitative research studies?

7. Discuss the difference in methods of data analysis for quantitative research versus qualitative research studies.

8. Discuss methods of insuring scientific rigor of quantitative research studies.

9. Discuss the methods for insuring scientific rigor of qualitative research studies.

10. Discuss the difference in generalizability based on quantitative or qualitative research.

2. Research Critique either one Quantitative or one Qualitative Research Study from the research studies related to your group’s Evidence-based Project.

Directions for the research critique:

1. For this assignment, please retrieve and review one (1) published research articles (Either one quantitative or one qualitative study) related to the Evidence-Based Research Clinical Question of Interest. Use one of our Library Databases such as CINAHL or Medline

Use a research article  published within the last 7 years. Do not use textbooks, opinion articles, commentaries, case studies, or literature review articles.

The research article must be referenced in strict accordance with the APA format.

· Author(s), Date, Title of Article. Journal, Volume #, Issue #, Page Numbers.

Note: Please follow APA format closely. Remember that the title of articles and books are lower-cased except for the first word or after a colon (:). Also, remember that Journal names are capitalized and italicized and that book titles are also italicized.

Use the specific critique guidelines presented in Polit and Beck (2016) for quantitative or qualitative studies found on pages 102-109.

1. Please provide the headers and the questions identified in Polit and Beck so that it is easy to follow in grading your paper.

2. Answer each critique question, section by section.

3. Provide specific information from the article itself as you discuss and critique these studies so that I can understand the details from the study.

4. Do not just answer “Yes” or “No” to the question but make critical comments about the research components of each study.

5. In each section of the critique, you are to identify the strengths and weaknesses, presenting your own rationale (positive and negative critique comments) about the value of this research.

Notes to Clarify:

You are to critique either one Quantitative or one Qualitative research study based on the research topic as decided upon by your research group for the Evidence-based Assignment Project. Each individual group member will have critiqued one research article that the group will use for the “Appraisal of Evidence” section of the EBP project. Dr. Fenkl will have provided feedback on your individual critiques in this current assignment. You will incorporate Dr. Fenkl’s feedback when the group writes the final version of the Appraisal of Evidence, particularly in the summary of the quality and strengths of the research in the Evidence-Based Group Assignment.

This assignment will be graded as:

Assignment Grading Schema AssignmentPotential PointsEarned PointsEssay Questions related to Differences between Quantitative and Qualitative Research10Research Critique using Polit and Beck Critique Criteria of One (Quantitative or Qualitative Research Study)10 Total20

(   Research Critique Sample and Clarification: Each of you will submit one document with two parts. First you will answer the questions. You should list the question and then answer it fully with a paragraph and then go on to the next question. That is Part I.  The second part will consist of the research critique. I am providing you with a sample table,of course, the questions in the table should reflect the questions you are addressing from Polit and Beck depending on if you are critiquing a quantitative or qualitative article (remember that a primary source quantitative is best – particularly one that coincides with your team’s focus). Part I – the answering of the questions will of course have references for the answers you provided. For Part II – the critique – you need only provide the citation of the article you are critiquing. )

 

 

Template

Component three of the critique assignment. Note: First person (e. g., I, my, our) is not used. Your professor has written in the third person in these instructions. For scholarly work and publications, the author writes in the third person (e. g., this student, this RN, etc.). Your professor did not make this distinction when you wrote of your interests in an earlier assignment but wanted you be aware of this APA requirement for future work. This document is provided in a word document so that you can download and use for your assignment.

Comments from your professor about this component are in red. Use a title page for every assignment in graduate school unless your professor advises you otherwise. The next pages are provided to assist you and to simplify the third component of your critique assignment.

First, title page. Please provide a title of the assignment as follows.

Research critique assignment

Your name here, followed by your credentials for example, followed by course number, followed by date

Student Name (s) BSN, RN

NGR 5810 Section XX

Fall 20XX

Professor PhD, RN, CNE

Graduate Faculty

 

 

 

Please read the pages from Polit and Beck (2021, pp. 102-105) and look up the boxes referred to in the right columns. The assignment and the critique tables are complex. Thus, your professor simplified this assignment for you which follows and was copied in part from your text (Polit & Beck, 2021 pp. 102-105). Only use one of the documents—either a quantitative or qualitative or quantitative checklist. So, your third component will be one critique in which you use the checklist. Summary: While you are expected to complete the checklist with a yes, no, unsure, or NA, comments are also encouraged guided by your text information.

 

Third component: One critique from a primary source.

Quantitative template (adapted from Polit & Beck, 2021, pp. 102-103) followed by a qualitative template (adapted from Polit & Beck, 2021, pp. 104). *For the third column, there are page numbers in the text that will refer you to additional “Boxes” within the text and page numbers for further explanations of the questions asked. Use these tables along with your text.

Cite the research article here using APA format. Example follows. Note that the citation is double spaced (APA requirement).

Quantitative Critique.

Ulff, E., Maroti, M., Serup, J., Nilsson, M., & Falkmer, U. (2016). Prophylactic treatment with a potent corticosteroid cream ameliorates radiodermatitis, independent of radiation schedule: A randomized double blinded study. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 122(1), 50-53.

Aspect of the Report	Critiquing Questions	*Student answers (yes/no/unsure/not applicable–NA) and comments (not required but needed depending on your choice of the research).
Title	Is the title a good one, succinctly suggesting key variables and the study population?
Comments
Abstract	Did the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the report (problem, methods, results, conclusions)?
Comments
Introduction Statement of the problem	Was the problem stated unambiguously, and was it easy to identify? Is the problem significant for nursing? Did the problem statement build a persuasive argument for the new study? Was there a good match between the research problem and the methods used—that is, was a quantitative approach appropriate?
Comments
Hypotheses or research questions	Were research questions and/or hypotheses explicitly stated? If not, was their absence justified? Were questions and hypotheses appropriately worded, with clear specification of key variables and the study population? Were the questions/hypotheses consistent with existing knowledge?
Comments
Literature review	Was the literature review up-to-date and based mainly on primary sources? Did the review provide a state-of-the-art synthesis of evidence on the problem? Did the literature review provide a strong basis for the new study?
Comments
Conceptual/ theoretical framework	Were key concepts adequately defined conceptually? Was a conceptual/theoretical framework articulated—and, if so, was it appropriate? If not, is the absence of a framework justified? Were the questions/hypotheses consistent with the framework?
Comments
Method Protection of human rights	Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants? Was the study externally reviewed by an IRB/ethics review board? Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to participants? ?
Comments
Research design	Was the most rigorous design used, given the study purpose? Were appropriate comparisons made to enhance interpretability of the findings? Was the number of data collection points appropriate? Did the design minimize biases and threats to the internal, construct, and external validity of the study (e.g., was blinding used, was attrition minimized)?
Comments
Population and sample	Was the population identified? Was the sample described in sufficient detail? Was the best possible sampling design used to enhance the sample’s representativeness? Were sampling biases minimized? Was the sample size adequate? Was the sample size based on a power analysis?
Comments
Data collection and measurement	Were the operational and conceptual definitions congruent? Were key variables measured using an appropriate method (e. g., interviews, observations, and so on)? Were specific instruments adequately described and were they good choices, given the study population and the variables being studied? Did the report provide evidence that the data collection methods yielded data that were reliable, valid, and responsive?
Comments
Procedures	If there was an intervention, was it adequately described, and was it rigorously developed and implemented? Did most participants allocated to the intervention group actually receive it? Was there evidence of intervention fidelity? Were data collected in a manner that minimized bias? Were the staff who collected data appropriately trained?
Comments
Results Data analysis	Were analyses undertaken to address each research question or test each hypothesis? Were appropriate statistical methods used, given the level of measurement of the variables, number of groups being compared, and assumptions of the tests? Was a powerful analytic method used? (e.g., did the analysis help to control for confounding variables)? Were Type I and Type II errors avoided or minimized? In intervention studies, was an intention-to-treat analysis performed? Were problems of missing values evaluated and adequately addressed?
Comments
Findings	Was information about statistical significance presented? Was information about effect size and precision of estimates (confidence intervals) presented? Were findings reported in a manner that facilitates a meta-analysis, and with sufficient information needed for EBP?
Comments
Discussion Interpretation of the findings	Were all major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior research and/or the study’s conceptual framework? Were causal inferences, if any, justified? Was the issue of clinical significance discussed? Were interpretations well-founded and consistent with the study’s limitations? Did the report address the issue of the generalizability of the findings?
Comments
Implications/ recommendations	Did the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical practice or further research—and were those implications reasonable and complete?
Comments
General Issues Presentation	Was the report well-written, organized, and sufficiently detailed for critical analysis? In intervention studies, was a CONSORT flowchart provided to show the flow of participants in the study? Was the report written in a manner that makes the findings accessible to practicing nurses?
Comments
Researcher credibility	Do the researchers’ clinical, substantive, or methodologic qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretation?
Comments
Summary assessment	Despite any limitations, do the study findings appear to be valid—do you have confidence in the truth value of the results? Does the study contribute any meaningful evidence that can be used in nursing practice or that is useful to the nursing discipline?
Comments

 

 

 

 

 

 

Qualitative template (adapted from Polit & Beck, 2021, pp. 104). *See previous instructions after title page. Refer to third column, etc. Use table along with your text. Qualitative Critique. A citation example below. Note double spaced citation.

Darcy, I., Knutsson, S., Hues, K., & Enskar, K, (2014). The everyday life of the young child shortly after receiving a cancer diagnosis. From both children’s and parent’s perspectives. Cancer Nursing, 37, 445-456.

There is only a volume listed in this journal, thus, no issue number.

 

Aspect of the Report	Critiquing Questions	*Student answers (yes/no/unsure/not applicable–NA) and comments (optional)
Title	Is the title a good one, suggesting the key phenomenon and the group or community under study?
Comments
Abstract	Did the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the report?
Comments
Research questions	Were research questions explicitly stated? If not, was their absence justified? Were the questions consistent with the study’s philosophical basis, underlying tradition, or ideologic orientation?
Comments
Conceptual underpinnings	Were key concepts adequately defined conceptually? Was the philosophical basis, underlying tradition, conceptual framework or ideologic orientation made explicit and was it appropriate for the problem?
Comments
Research design and research tradition	Was the identified research tradition (if any) congruent with the methods used to collect and analyze data? Was an adequate amount of time spent with study participants? Did the design unfold during data collection, giving researchers opportunities to capitalize on early understandings? Was there an adequate number of contacts with study participants?
Comments
Data collection	Were the methods of gathering data appropriate? Were data gathered through two or more methods to achieve triangulation: Did the researcher ask the right questions or make the right observations, and were they recorded in an appropriate fashion? Was a sufficient amount of data gathered? Were the data of sufficient depth and richness?
Comments
Enhancement of trustworthliness	Did the researchers use effective strategies to enhance the trustworthiness/integrity of the study, and was there a good description of those strategies? Were the methods used to enhance trustworthiness adequate? Did the researcher document research procedures and decision processes sufficiently that findings are auditable and confirmable? Was there evidence of researcher reflexivity? Was there “thick description” of the context, participants, and findings, and was it at a sufficient level to support transferability?
Comments
Findings	Were the findings effectively summarized, with good use of excerpts and supporting arguments? Did the themes adequately capture the meaning of the data? Does it appear that the researcher satisfactorily conceptualized the themes or patterns in the data? Did the analysis yield an insightful, provocative, authentic, and meaningful picture of the phenomenon under investigation?
Comments
Discussion Interpretation of the findings	Were the findings interpreted within an appropriate social or cultural context? Were major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior studies? Were the interpretations consistent with the study’s limitations?
Implications/ recommendations	Did the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical practice or further research—and were those implications reasonable and complete?
Comments
Researcher credibility	Do the researchers’ clinical, substantive, or methodologic qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretation?