Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Part 2

, ,

Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Part 2

Write a critical appraisal that demonstrates comprehension of two quantitative research studies. Use the \”Research Critique Guidelines – Part II\” document (PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT) to organize your essay. Successful completion of this assignment requires that you provide a rationale, include examples, and reference content from the study in your responses. Use the practice problem and two quantitative, peer-reviewed research articles you identified in the Topic 1 assignment to complete this assignment. (PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT) *** Please use peer reviewed research articles for this assignment.*** In a 1,000–1,250 word essay, summarize two quantitative studies, explain the ways in which the findings might be used in nursing practice, and address ethical considerations associated with the conduct of the study.Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Part 2.   Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

Quantitative Studies

Research articles are intended to present best standards of practice possible that provide evidence-based practice. There is a need to critique the research articles used to ensure that they present the best standards. If professional practice is to improve, then applications there is a need to apply evidence to improve practical and theoretical skills and knowledge, and this is only possible if relevant available research is used (Abell & Wright, 2016). Such research can only be identified by assessing the quality of the available research. But to identify the best evidence, it is important to critique the research studies to see if they are useful and of sufficient quality to be applied in practice (LoBiondo-Wood & Wood, 2014). The present research critique explores two journal articles that applied quantitative research approaches with the intention of answering a PICOT question on whether the application of hand hygiene could reduce the rate of hospital acquired infections (HAI) in acute care inpatients.

Background

Haverstick et al. (2017) identifies hand hygiene as an important practice for preventing HAI. While the is the case, focus has remained in encouraging hand hygiene among medical personnel while ignoring patients. The concern is that the health care environment includes both medical personnel and patients. Towards this end, the study sought to explore the effects of encouraging hand hygiene practices among patients with the results explored in terms of microbial infection rates. On the other hand, Nekkab et al. (2017) notes that multi-drug resistant organisms have become a concern in the health care industry owing to the difficulty in eliminating the organisms once an infection occurs. Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Part 2. The presence of these organisms creates concerns about HAI with the potential for epidemic spread. In addition, it notes that this is not a concern for a single hospital facility, and is in fact a concern for whole networks since it is not uncommon for patients to be transferred between medical facilities. Given this awareness, the study seeks to explore the potential transfer patterns for HAIs following patient transfer networks.

How do these two articles support the nurse practice issue you chose?

The nursing issue of concern is hand hygiene as a strategy for reducing HAI rates. Haverstick et al. (2017) supports the nursing practice issue by acknowledging that hand hygiene is important for preventing HAI. It goes a step further in suggesting that hand hygiene should be practiced by medical personnel and patients. The article generalizes its population as patients while the PICOT question identifies acute care inpatients as the population of interest. This implies that the study results can be generalized for the PICOT question. Nekkab et al. (2017) will be useful in addressing the nursing issue identifying HAI as a concern. It identifies the reality that HAI is not a concern for a single facility and is instead a concern for all the facilities within a patient network. This implies that if a patient is at risk of HAI in one hospital, then transferring that patient to another hospital would transfer that risk to the second hospital. This creates a need for identifying and applying effective interventions. Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Part 2.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM -FREE PAPER NOW

Method of Study:

Haverstick et al. (2017) applies a quasi-experimental study design with a one-group pretest-posttest approach in which patients are subjected to hand hygiene support as the intervention with test results compared for bacterial amounts before and after the intervention. The methodology includes a comparison and time interval between the control and intervention thereby allowing for a time series analysis. A benefit of this approach is that it eliminates the ethical issues of randomizing the patients as the same group is used in the pretest and posttest phases. A shortcoming of this approach is the lack of random assignment thus making it difficult to determine causality (Schweizer, Braun & Milstone, 2016).

Nekkab et al. (2017) applies a quantitative research approach that made use of retrospective data analysis. The methodology involved perusing data from hospital discharge summaries databases in France as presented in 2014. The data was evaluated and assigned to three patient networks that were compared for clustering and HAI spread networks. The retrospective study approach has the benefit of analyzing large volumes of data that identifies potential risk factors through association. This approach has the limitation of only determining association and being unable to determine causation (Weinger et al., 2003).

Results of Study

Haverstick et al. (2017) reports that if patients are provided with hand sanitizers and hand hygiene education by medical personnel, then they are more likely to actively engage in hand hygiene practices with the result being reduced rates/incidences of HAI. The rates of infection decline significantly. The implication of the study is that increased hand hygiene compliance among patients would significantly reduce HAI rates and incidences. In addition, it shows that medical personnel can encourage hand hygiene practices among patients through providing hand sanitizers and education on hand hygiene.

Nekkab et al. (2017) reports that there are three patient networks that can be identified from the retrospective data: HAI-specific network, suspected HAI network, and general patient network. The three networks have unique characteristics with heterogeneous patient flow. Irrespective of the patient population, the same underlying structure is noted for all networks thereby implying that the spread of HAI would follow the same structures. In addition, the same transfer patterns are reported for the three networks. This implies that HAI intervention strategies shown to be effective for one population group are likely to work for other patient groups.

Outcomes Comparison

The PICOT question is: In acute care inpatients (P), does hand hygiene (I) compared to no intervention (C) reduce the rate of hospital acquired infections (O) within 6 months (T)? It is expected that rates of HAI will significantly reduce at the end of the study when the intervention and control groups are compared thereby showing that hand hygiene practices are effective in eliminating the pathogens that cause HAIs. Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Part 2. These anticipated outcomes compare to those presented in Haverstick et al. (2017) as they are expected to have similar results. In addition, they compare to those presented in Nekkab et al. (2017) by showing that the interventions shown to be effective for one patient population would be effective for other patient populations.

Conclusion

One must accept that a research critique helps to assess the quality of available research with a focus on determining if the research is useful and of sufficient quality to be applied in practice. In addition, one must acknowledge that Haverstick et al. (2017) and Nekkab et al. (2017) are two quantitative research articles with implications for HAI intervention. Haverstick et al. (2017) notes that hand hygiene should be practiced among patients to improve HAI outcomes, while Nekkab et al. (2017) notes that HAI incidences follow the same patterns for all populations so that the same interventions should work for all populations. The two articles both apply appropriate research methodologies and show that HAI can be managed through deliberate interventions.

References

Abell, C. H., & Wright, D. G. (2016) Critiquing Quantitative Research Reports: Key Points for the Beginner. International Journal of Faith Community Nursing, 2(3), 1. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/ijfcn/vol2/iss3/1

Haverstick, S., Goodrich, C., Freeman, R., James, S., Kullar, R., & Ahrens, M. (2017). Patients’ hand washing and reducing hospital-acquired infection. Critical Care Nurse, 37(3), e1-e8. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017694

LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2014). Nursing Research: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 5(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2155-8256(15)30102-2

Nekkab, N., Astagneau, P., Temime, L., & Crépey, P. (2017). Spread of hospital-acquired infections: A comparison of healthcare networks. PLoS Computational Biology, 13(8), e1005666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005666

Schweizer, M., Braun, B., & Milstone, A. (2016). Research Methods in Healthcare Epidemiology and Antimicrobial Stewardship – Quasi-Experimental Designs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol., 37(10), 1135-1140. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2016.117

Weinger, M., Slagle, J., Jain, S., & Ordonez, N. (2003). Retrospective data collection and analytical techniques for patient safety studies. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 36(1-2), 106-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2003.08.002  .Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Part 2.

I’m reading the Rough Draft Qualitative papers and they are coming across as summaries of two research papers. For the Rough Draft Quantitative due this weekend, I want a critique that gives an argument, a clear and convincing one. You have to persuade a reader in a compelling manner on how the two research articles support your PICOT question.

The method, results etc. sections require comparison. Please follow the rubric. A good technique could be interweaving the articles together. Doing a critique on article one and then starting article two without comparing the two go across as a summary.

Below is a good research critique but this critique is on only one research article. Also, some of the sections are not required for your paper. I just want you to get the essence of a clear, convincing and compelling critique. See below.

 

If you’ve already submitted your Rough Draft for the Quantitative critique and wish to redo it before the due date, please let me know privately so I can reassign it for resubmit.  Let me know if you have any questions.

Keep the great work!

 

 

Here is a really good example of a scholary research critique written by a student in EDRS 6301. The student who submitted this paper last semester earned a 100 on his critique.  The content of the paper is right on track.  A succint summary is provided in the first paragraph.  This paper would have been even better if the student had added a sentence or two about the results of the study.  That way, after reading the first paragraph, the reader would know the purpose, hypotheses, and findings.

Next, the student described specifics about the research design, including the sample, instrumentation, and data analysis.  Ecological and population generalizability were discussed.  The student spoke at length on threats to internal validity.  Following the information on threats to internal validity, the student provided suggestions regarding how these threats could have been dealt with.  This shows a high level of understanding.  Not only does the student know what the weakness of the study are, he provides ways the study could have been improved.

One thing that was not discussed in this paper is the literature review.  In previous classes we spent more time talking about statistics than the literature review.  That’s why you’ll see some fairly complex explanations in this paper on the data analysis but no information on the literature review.

Your paper will contain information on the literature review and less specific information on statistics. Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Part 2.

Chris K.
Research Critique 1

      Jamber, E. A., & Zhang, J .J. (1997).  Investigating leadership, gender, and coaching level using the Revised Leadership for Sport Scale. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 313-322.
       The purpose of the study was to determine possible differences in leadership behaviors, using the Revised Leadership for Sport Scale (RLSS), between male and female coaches and among different coaching levels.  The researchers submitted two hypotheses.  The first hypothesis was that male and female coaches would respond differently to the RLSS in overall leadership behaviors.  The second hypothesis was that differences on the RLSS would occur among coaching levels: junior high, high school, and college.

     The sample was nonrandom, including 162 coaches that were chosen on a volunteer basis.  Within the sample, 118 (0.73) of the coaches were male, while 44 (0.27) were female.  With regard to coaching level, 25 (0.15) were junior high coaches, 99 (0.61) high school, and 38 (0.24) at the college level.   While this is a good sample size, the problem lies with the distribution of the sample.  The sample number for junior high coaches, in particular, is rather low.  A larger sample with regard to all categories would have aided in the data analysis, particularly when looking for possible interactions between gender and coaching level. 

     The instrument utilized was the Revised Leadership for Sport Scale (RLSS) developed by Zhang, Jensen, and Mann in 1996.  This scale is used to measure six leadership behaviors:  training and instruction, democratic, autocratic, social support, positive feedback, and situational consideration.  The scale uses 60 statements, which were preceded by �In coaching, I:� A Likert scale was then given for each statement: 1 = never; 2 = seldom; 3 = occasionally; 4 = often; and 5 = always.  This produced an ordinal level data set.  Scales were administered in a number of environmental settings: classrooms, gymnasiums, practice 

fields, and offices.  The internal consistency for each section was calculated: 0.84 for training and instruction; 0.66 for democratic; 0.70 for autocratic; 0.52 for social support; 0.78 for positive feedback; and 0.69 for situational consideration.  There was no information, however, regarding the validity of the RLSS. 

     A MANOVA was used to analyze the data for differences between male and female coaches with regard to leadership behaviors.  This is not consistent with the type of data collected.  The RLSS used a Likert scale (ordinal), yet a MANOVA would be most applicable for normally distributed, quantitative data.  The analysis showed there were no significant differences between male and female coaches in overall leadership behaviors. When the six leadership styles were examined separately, there was a significant difference in social support between males and females.  In general, females scored much higher than did the male coaches.

       A MANOVA was also used to examine the data for differences between the three levels of coaching (junior high, high school, and college) with regard to leadership behavior in general.  There were significant differences between the three levels.  When breaking down the six behaviors and examining them individually, an ANOVA was used to analyze the data.  Again, because the data for the RLSS is ordinal, an ANOVA is not the best analysis tool.   The three coaching levels scored differently on three of the six behaviors: democratic behaviors, training and instruction, and social support. High school coaches scored much higher than college level coaches in democratic behavior.  Junior high coaches were significantly lower in training and instruction than either high school or college coaches. Junior high coaches also demonstrated a lesser degree of social support than either the high school or college coaches.

     A MANOVA was again used to analyze the data for any interaction between gender and coaching level with regard to overall leadership behavior.  Once again, a better analysis method could have been chosen based on the nature of the data collected. The results indicated no significant interactions. 

      The ecological generaliziability for the study is fairly high.  The surveys were mailed out, and returned on a volunteer basis.  However,  due to the nonrandom nature of the sample, the results would not generalizable beyond the 162 participants in the study. There was no effect size is listed for the study.  Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Part 2.

      In order to reduce threats to internal validity, the participants were asked to respond honestly and confidentiality was stressed so that the �coaches might feel more at ease in responding.�   No other efforts were indicated. 

      The researchers mention that the scales were given in a variety of settings.  This could present a threat to the internal validity in that participants might not have been entirely focused on completing the scale, but instead on coordinating practice, completing paperwork, etc.  There are a number of other factors that could effect the internal validity of the study, yet were not addressed by the researchers. Coaching experience would greatly effect the responses of the participants, yet this was not considered in the study.  The gender of the athletes may be a contributing factor to the coaches� responses.  It is not unreasonable to suppose that coaches of female athletes, particularly at the junior high and high school levels, will demonstrate more social support than those of male athletes. The nature of the sport could also be critical.  Certain coaching styles are more applicable for individual sports (wrestling, track, and tennis) than for team sports (football, soccer, and basketball).  The socioeconomics and population of the school itself could play a factor.  Certain schools have better athletes and programs in a particular sport, while others may not be able to field a winning team.  In addition, at the high school level, coaches are occasionally asked/forced to work with a program they have no knowledge of or desire to coach due to staffing shortages.  This could dramatically influence a coach�s response to the scale questions. The history of the program as well as the individual coach�s personal coaching history could greatly influence responses.  If the program has had several losing seasons in a row, perhaps the attitude of the coach could be different than that of a coach who has recently won a state title. 

     An additional set of questions regarding the personal history of the coach in question could have helped reduce many of these threats.  With additional information, the researchers may have been able to use a modified matching system when analyzing the results.  By increasing the number of independent variables to include things such as coaching experience and gender of the athletes, the researchers could have reduced some of the potential threats to internal validity.  In addition, bringing coaches together to a common setting could have reduced location threat.  Coaches meet seasonally for clinics.  Perhaps obtaining ermission to administer the survey during these meetings would have been possible. It would have also been possible to actually go to individual schools and meet with the coaches as a group to administer surveys.  This method would have given a good cross-section of gender and coaching experience for a variety of sports. 

 

     While the study has merit, the methods need to be re-evaluated.  The power of the study needs to be increased by obtaining a larger sample size.  The numerous potential threats to internal validity need to be addressed and minimized where possible.  It would also be helpful to be given data regarding the validity of the RLSS.  Without these, it is impossible to evaluate the potential meaningfulness of this study. 
 

Use the practice problem and two qualitative, peer-reviewed research article you identified in the Topic 1 assignment to complete this assignment. (PLEASE USE THE FOLLOWING)

 

PICOT Question:

In acute care inpatients (P), does hand hygiene (I) compared to no intervention (C) reduce the rate of hospital acquired infections (O) within 6 months? (T)

 

Quantitative References

Grayson, M. L., Stewardson, A. J., Russo, P. L., Ryan, K. E., Olsen, K. L., Havers, S. M., … & National Hand Hygiene Initiative. (2018). Effects of the Australian National Hand Hygiene Initiative after 8 years on infection control practices, health-care worker education, and clinical outcomes: a longitudinal study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 18(11), 1269-1277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30491-2. Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Part 2.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM -FREE PAPER NOW

Permalink:

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=132578175&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s8333196&groupid=main&profile=eds1

Haverstick, S., Goodrich, C., Freeman, R., James, S., Kullar, R., & Ahrens, M. (2017). Patients’ hand washing and reducing hospital-acquired infection. Critical care nurse, 37(3), e1-e8. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017694

Permalink:

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=123102068&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s8333196&groupid=main&profile=eds1

Nekkab, N., Astagneau, P., Temime, L., & Crépey, P. (2017). Spread of hospital-acquired infections: A comparison of healthcare networks. PLoS computational biology, 13(8), e1005666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005666

Permalink:

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=124796480&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s8333196&groupid=main&profile=eds1

Quantitative Studies

Background

  1. Summary of studies. Include problem, significance to nursing, purpose, objective, and research question.

How do these two articles support the nurse practice issue you chose?

  1. Discuss how these two articles will be used to answer your PICOT question.
  2. Describe how the interventions and comparison groups in the articles compare to those identified in your PICOT question.

Method of Study:

  1. State the methods of the two articles you are comparing and describe how they are different. Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Part 2.
  2. Consider the methods you identified in your chosen articles and state one benefit and one limitation of each method.

Results of Study

  1. Summarize the key findings of each study in one or two comprehensive paragraphs.
  2. What are the implications of the two studies you chose in nursing practice?

Outcomes Comparison

  1. What are the anticipated outcomes for your PICOT question?
  2. How do the outcomes of your chosen articles compare to your anticipated outcomes?

Quantitative References

Grayson, M. L., Stewardson, A. J., Russo, P. L., Ryan, K. E., Olsen, K. L., Havers, S. M., … & National Hand Hygiene Initiative. (2018). Effects of the Australian National Hand Hygiene Initiative after 8 years on infection control practices, health-care worker education, and clinical outcomes: a longitudinal study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 18(11), 1269-1277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(18)30491-2

Permalink:

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=132578175&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s8333196&groupid=main&profile=eds1

Haverstick, S., Goodrich, C., Freeman, R., James, S., Kullar, R., & Ahrens, M. (2017). Patients’ hand washing and reducing hospital-acquired infection. Critical care nurse, 37(3), e1-e8. https://doi.org/10.4037/ccn2017694

Permalink:

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=123102068&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s8333196&groupid=main&profile=eds1

Nekkab, N., Astagneau, P., Temime, L., & Crépey, P. (2017). Spread of hospital-acquired infections: A comparison of healthcare networks. PLoS computational biology, 13(8), e1005666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005666

Permalink:

https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=124796480&site=eds-live&scope=site&custid=s8333196&groupid=main&profile=eds1. Quantitative Research Critique and Ethical Considerations Part 2.