NR701 Critique of Quantitative Research

NR701 Critique of Quantitative Research

NR701 Critique of Quantitative Research

Critique of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Articles Guidelines Purpose The student will compare quantitative and qualitative research articles to determine how theory and research are linked, and how they are utilized for nursing science. Course Outcomes This assignment enables the student to meet the following course outcomes: CO 4: Compare and contrast the difference and similarities with selected characteristics of quantitative research designs. (PO#3) CO 5: Evaluate appropriateness of qualitative research design for a specific clinical practice question. (PO#3) CO 6: Evaluate appropriateness of quantitative research design for a specific clinical practice question. (PO#3) Due Date: Submit by Sunday of the end Week 5 at 11:59 p.m. MT. Points: This assignment is worth a total of 200 points. Requirements 1. Review the three categories below (highlighted), which include one quantitative and one qualitative article. Select one category you are most interested in and use the assigned articles under that category to complete your assignment. Note the articles below may be found within the CCN library by clicking on the links below each article. If you need further instructions/help, visit the “Need Help” or the “Ask a Librarian” sections of the library page associated with NR-701 Application of Analytic Methods”. Category 1: Pressure Ulcers Coyer, F., Gardner, A., Doubrovsky, A., Cole, R., Ryan, F., Allen, C., & McNamara, G. (2015). Reducing pressure ulcer injuries in critically ill patients by using a patient skin integrity care bundle (InSPiRE). American Journal of Critical Care, 24(3), 199-209.

NR701 Critique of Quantitative Research

http://dx.doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2015930 Roberts, S., McInnes, E., Wallis, M., Bucknall, T., Banks, M., & Chaboyer, W. (2016). Nurses’ perceptions of a pressure ulcer prevention care bundle: A qualitative descriptive study. BMC Nursing, 15, 1-10. doi:10.1186/s12912-016-0188-9 Category 2: Compassion Fatigue Berg, G., Harshbarger, J., Ahlers-Schmidt, C., & Lippoldt, D. (2016, January-February). Exposing compassion fatigue and burnout syndrome in a trauma team: A qualitative study. Journal of Trauma Nursing, 23(1), 3-10. doi:10.1097/JTN.0000000000000172 Kelly, L., & Lefton, C. (2017, November). Effect of meaningful recognition on critical care nurses’ compassion fatigue. American Journal of Critical Care, 26(6), 438-444. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2017471 Category 3: End- of-Life Care Holms, N., Milligan, S., & Kydd, A. (2014). A study of the lived experiences of registered nurses who have provided end-of-life care within an intensive care unit. International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 20(11), 549-556. doi:10.12968/ijpn.2014.20.11.549 Potash, J., HY Ho, A., Chan, F., Wang, X., & Cheng, C. (2014). Can art therapy reduce death anxiety and burnout in end-of-life care workers? A quasi-experimental study. International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 20(5), 233-240. doi:10.12968/ijpn.2014.20.5.233 2. Submit a 6 page APA-formatted paper (note a template for this assignment can be found in Course Resources): a. Include an Introduction section entitled, Critique of Quantitative and Qualitative Articles (centered, not bolded), that indicates the purpose of your paper b. Compare and contrast the articles with respect to (headings should be centered and bolded): 1. Research Design 2. Research Question(s) 3. Sampling Process and Sample Size 4. Methods for Data Analysis 5. Adhering to Ethical Standards 6. Reliability and Validity (Rigor) 7. Generalizability and Transferability of Findings c. Summarization (centered and bolded); share your own thoughts regarding the usefulness and value of quantitative vs. qualitative research. Provide a rationale for your opinions and explain how each research methodology can be used to support a change in practice. Be sure to avoid the use of 1st person terminology by referring to yourself as the DNP student or the DNP learner, etc. Directions and Grading Criteria Category Points % Description Introduction 10 5% Introduction paragraph is concise (approximately 5 sentences). A brief introduction is provided for each article being critiqued. The purpose of the paper is clearly conveyed/expressed through use of a formal purpose statement. Research Design 20 10% Compare and contrast the research designs from each article. Critique appropriateness of the design used in relation to the research questions being asked in each article. Provide evidence to support research design appropriateness. Research Questions 20 10% Compare and contrast the research questions from the standpoint of a quantitative versus a qualitative inquiry. How do they differ? Sampling Process and Sample Size 20 10% Compare and contrast the sampling process and size for each article. For example, what type of population was used? How were subjects recruited? What were inclusion and exclusion criteria, if any? Were the sample sizes for each article sufficient? Why or why not? Methods for Data Analysis 25 12.5% Compare and contrast the methods for data analysis for each article. For example, what statistical tests were performed by the quantitative researchers and for what purpose where they used? How did the qualitative researchers analyze the data they collected? Were the tests appropriate for the type of data collected? Ethical standards 20 10% Compare and contrast the ethical standards described or implied in each article. For example, what were the protections put into place to protect human subjects or personal demographic data? Did the researchers adhere to the standards, or were there any potential ethical considerations? Reliability and validity (rigor) 20 10% Compare and contrast the reliability/validity and rigor of the methods reported in each article. For example, was the reliability/validity of the quantitative instruments addressed? What did the qualitative researchers do to ensure rigor in their study? Generalizability, Transferability of findings 25 12.5% Examine the generalizability of the findings from the quantitative article. Were they any threats to external validity or internal validity? Were they acknowledged? For the qualitative article, address the transferability of the findings. Are the findings credible? Why or why not? Summarization 20 10% Summarize your own thoughts regarding the usefulness of quantitative and quantitative research when making a change in practice. APA formatting, scholarly writing 20 10% Adheres to the rules of APA formatting, scholarly writing, spelling, and grammar. Maintain paper within length requirements Met/Not Met (Up to 10 points deducted if not met) Up to 10% if Not Met Adheres to the minimum/maximum page requirements of 4-6 pages (excluding title and reference pages). Note up to 10 points can be deducted for going over or under the page requirements for the assignment. Total 200 100% A quality paper will meet or exceed all of the above requirements. Grading Rubric Assignment Criteria A Outstanding or highest level of performance B Very good or high level of performance C Competent or satisfactory level of performance D/F Poor or failing or unsatisfactory level of performance Introduction 10 points Fully introduces both articles. Remains clear and concise and includes formal purpose statement. 9-10 points Mostly introduces both articles. Mostly remains clear and concise and includes formal purpose statement. 8 points Minimally introduces both articles. Formal purpose statement is included. 7 points Fails to introduce both articles. Introduction is unclear and formal purpose statement is not included. 0-6 points Research Design 20 points Fully compares and contrasts the research design for each article. 18-20 points Mostly compares and contrasts the research design for each article. 16-17 points Minimally compares and contrasts the research design for each article. 14-15 points Fails to compare and contrast the research design for each article. 0-13 points Research Questions 20 points Fully compares and contrasts the research questions for each article in the context of their methodology. 18-20 points Mostly compares and contrasts the research questions for each article in the context of their methodology. 16-17 points Minimally compares and contrasts research questions for each article in the context of their methodology. 14-15 points Fails to compare and contrast the research questions for each article in the context of their methodology. 0-13 points Sampling Process and Sample Size 20 points Fully compares and contrasts the sample selection and size for each article. 18-20 points Mostly compares and contrasts the sample selection and size for each article. 16-17 points Minimally compares and contrasts the sample selection and size for each article. 14-15 points Fails to compare and contrast the sample selection and size for each article. 0-13 points Methods for Data Analysis 25 points Fully compares and contrasts the methods of data analysis for each article. 23 – 25 points Mostly compares and contrasts the methods of data analysis for each article. 21-22 points Minimally compares and contrasts the methods of data analysis for each article. 19-20 points Fails to compare and contrast the methods of data analysis for each article. 0-18 points Ethical standards 20 points Fully compares and contrasts the ethical standards for each article. 18-20 points Mostly compares and contrasts the ethical standards for each article. 16-17 points Minimally compares and contrasts the ethical standards for each article. 14-15 points Fails to compare and contrast the ethical standards for each article. 0-13 points Reliability and validity (rigor) 20 points Fully compares and contrasts the reliability and validity (rigor) for each article. 18-20 points Mostly compares and contrasts the reliability and validity (rigor) for each article. 16-17 points Minimally compares and contrasts the reliability and validity (rigor) for each article. 14-15 points Fails to compare and contrast the reliability and validity (rigor) for each article. 0-13 points Generalizability, Transferability of findings 25 points Fully compares and contrasts the generalizability and transferability of findings for each article. 23-25 points Mostly compares and contrasts the generalizability and transferability of findings for each article. 21-22 points Minimally compares and contrasts the generalizability and transferability of findings for each article. 19-20 points Fails to compare and contrast the generalizability and transferability of findings for each article. 0-18 points Summarization 20 points Described in detail thoughts regarding qualitative and quantitative research including rationale. 18-20 points Described thoughts regarding qualitative and quantitative research but provides little rationale. 16-17 points Described thoughts regarding research but does not discriminate between qualitative and quantitative, or gives weak rationale. 14-15 points Failed to describe thoughts regarding qualitative and quantitative research and gives no rationale. 0-13 points APA formatting, scholarly writing 20 points Writes in a scholarly manner with no grammar, spelling, or syntax errors. Follows the rules of APA formatting. 18-20 points Writes in a scholarly manner with minimal grammar, spelling, or syntax errors. Follows the rules of APA formatting. 16-17 points Writes in a scholarly manner with several grammar, spelling, or syntax errors. Breaks minor rules of rules of APA formatting. 14-15 points Does not write in a scholarly manner. Has many errors in grammar, spelling and syntax. Does not follow rules for APA formatting. 0-13 points Maintains paper within length requirements (Up to 10 points deducted if not met) Adheres to the minimum/maximum page requirements of 4-6 pages (excluding title and reference pages). No point deduction Met Paper is up to 1 page under or over the minimum/maximum page requirements of 4-6 pages (excluding title and reference pages). 4-5 point deduction per faculty discretion Not Met Paper is 2 pages under or over the minimum/maximum page requirements of 4-6 pages (excluding title and reference pages). 6-8 point deduction per faculty discretion Not Met Paper is 3 pages under or over the minimum/maximum page requirements of 4-6 pages (excluding title and reference pages). 9-10 point deduction per faculty discretion Not Met Total Points Possible = 200 points