Nursing research 63 377 dr wally j bartfay
Download
1 / 25

Nursing Research: 63-377 Dr. Wally J. Bartfay - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 121 Views
  • Uploaded on

Nursing Research: 63-377 Dr. Wally J. Bartfay. “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” (Albert Einstein, 1879-1955). Research Questions. Are specific statements about the query the researcher wants to answer

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Nursing Research: 63-377 Dr. Wally J. Bartfay' - keith-lawson


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Nursing research 63 377 dr wally j bartfay

Nursing Research: 63-377Dr. Wally J. Bartfay

“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

(Albert Einstein, 1879-1955)


Research questions
Research Questions

  • Are specific statements about the query the researcher wants to answer

  • E.g.1: “What is the effect of a 3 year television community-based heart health program on the CVD mortality rate in Ontario?”

  • E.g.2: “What is the effect of passive ROM on the prevention of DVT’s during the first 24 hours following stroke?”


Research questions quantitative
Research Questions: Quantitative

  • They often identify key variables (e.g., BP, cholesterol, knowledge), the proposed relationships between (e.g., less, more, higher, lower, etc) them & the target population (e.g., stroke survivors, children with IDDM) {more solid}

  • E.g., What is the effect of a 10 week walking program on subjects BP, cholesterol profiles and serum ferritin levels in post-menopausal women aged 50 to 60 years?


Research questions qualitative
Research Questions: Qualitative

  • May evolve & change over course of study (fairly broad at onset, narrows overtime) {more fluid B/C researcher is often the instrument & subjectivity is essential for understanding human experiences}

  • E.g., time 1: What is the lived experience of women who have undergone a C-section?

  • E.g., time 2: What are the specific negative connotations & images r/t to birth process identified by women who have undergone a C-section?



Research hypotheses
Research Hypotheses

  • Specifies the variables to be manipulated or measured

  • Identifies the target population to be examined

  • They “predict” the outcomes

  • May be based on a theory (e.g., behavioral modification)

  • May be simple (one independent & dependent variable) or complex (multiple variables/ outcomes)

  • May be directional (e.g., higher, lower) or non-directional (variables related but no direction how)

  • May be associative versus causal


Research hypothesis a real example
Research Hypothesis: A real example

  • At least 50% of nursing students enrolled in 63-377 will be able to recall 7+/-2 items on a memory challenge test


Research hypothesis a real example1
Research Hypothesis: A real example

  • Mirror, ray, cat, periscope, system, nucleus

  • Sand, elephant, pen-knife, gigantic, camera

  • Jupiter, organic, ice-cream, cow, bladder

  • Photosynthesis, root, teeth, taxi, snake, x-ray


Research hypothesis a real example2
Research Hypothesis: A real example

  • At least 50% of nursing students enrolled in 63-377 will be able to recall 7+/-2 items on a memory challenge test

  • Class results?

  • Accept or reject hypothesis


Purposes of hypotheses
Purposes of Hypotheses

  • (1) To provide a bridge between theory & reality, in this sense, unifying the 2 domains

  • (2) To be tools for advancement of knowledge b/c they enable the researcher to objectively enter new areas of discovery

  • (3) To provide direction for research endeavors by identifying the anticipated outcome


Assumptions r t hypotheses
Assumptions r/t Hypotheses

  • Nature of the relationships, either causal or associative, is implied

  • They are testable, which means variables have to be observable & measurable

  • Sound hypotheses are consistent with existing body of knowledge, theory & research findings (white horse scenario)


Developing research hypotheses
Developing Research Hypotheses

  • Should be a statement about the relationship between 2 or more variables that suggest an answer to the research ?

  • Should convert the question posed by research problem into a declarative statement that predicts an expected outcome

  • Should flow from research problem, lit. review & theoretical framework


Developing research hypotheses1
Developing Research Hypotheses

Hypotheses

Interrelationships of problem statement, lit. review,

theoretical framework & hypotheses


Review exercise examples of hypotheses formulated
Review exercise: Examples of hypotheses formulated

  • (1) There will be a positive relationship between recalled psychological distress & the onset of G.I. symptoms in clients with irritable bowel syndrome

  • (2) There will be a positive relationship between recalled psychological distress and exacerbation of G.I. symptoms in clients with irritable bowel syndrome


Critiquing criteria for hypotheses
Critiquing Criteria for Hypotheses

  • Does it r/t research problem?

  • Is it concisely stated in a declarative form?

  • Are independent & dependent variables clearly identified?

  • Are variables measurable?

  • Is it testable?

  • Is theoretical rationale explicit?

  • Is it stated objectively, without value-laden words?


Review of literature
Review of Literature

Review of Literature

Proposed relationships between research, education,

practice & literature


Review of literature major goal
Review of Literature: Major Goal

  • To develop a sound and strong knowledge base to carry-out research and other scholarly educational and clinical practice activities


Critical elements in literature review grant proposal development
Critical elements in literature review: Grant proposal development

  • When the problem/ concept was identified

  • When was it 1st investigated

  • How was it previously investigated (specific designs employed, target populations)

  • By whom was it investigated (individual, multi-site, WHO etc)

  • Gaps & inconsistencies identified (provides directions for future research)


Review of literature objectives
Review of Literature: Objectives development

  • (1) Determines what is known & not known about a problem, subject or concept

  • (2) Determines gaps, consistencies and inconsistencies

  • (3) Helps to uncover unanswered ?’s

  • (4) Helps to identify conceptual frameworks used to examine problems

  • (5) May uncover new practice interventions and/or provides rationale for current and proposed interventions, protocols & policies


Review of literature objectives1
Review of Literature: Objectives development

  • (6) Helps generate useful research ?’s & hypotheses of interest to nursing

  • (7) Helps determine appropriate research design, methodology, & analysis based on earlier reports

  • (8) Determines need for replication of study or refinement (e.g., other target populations)

  • (9) Synthesizes strengths & weaknesses of earlier reports in a concise manner

  • (10) Provides rationale & clinical significance for new research endeavors (research proposals)


Steps for reviewing the literature
Steps For Reviewing The Literature: development

  • (1) Determine concept/ issue/ topic/ problem of interest

  • (2) Identify key words, variables, terms

  • (3) Conduct print (esp. recent reviews) & computer searches of abstracts (e.g., PUBMED, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC)

  • (4) Print-out key abstracts & organize sources for retrieval (e.g., organize by journal name, year etc)

  • (5) Retrieve relevant articles (esp. current reviews as a starting point)


Steps for reviewing the literature1
Steps For Reviewing The Literature: development

  • (6) Proof articles & weed-out all irrelevant articles

  • (7) Copy all relevant, classical & ground-breaking articles (hint: who’s quoting who?)

  • (8) Review articles systematically (abstract, background, research ?s, hypotheses, methods, results, discussion)

  • (9) Summarize & systematically critique each source

  • (10) Synthesize critical summaries (e.g., chronologically, according to type etc)


Databases print internet based
Databases: Print & Internet based development

  • CINAHL (1st published in 1956- note: historical research)

  • Index Medicus {IM} (oldest health related index, 1st published in 1879)

  • Psychological Abstracts (covers 1927 to present)

  • International Nursing Index {INI} (started in 1966)

  • Nursing Studies Index (developed by Virginia Henderson, from 1900 to 1959)

  • Hospital & Health Administration Index {HHAI} (1945)

  • Current Index to Journals in Education {CIJE} (1969, now known as ERIC)

  • Many others, including MEDLINE (since 1966), PUBMED, HealthStar, Psychological Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Nursing Abstracts, Dissertation Abstracts, etc


Critiquing criteria for review of literature
Critiquing Criteria for Review of Literature: development

  • (1) What are gaps or inconsistencies?

  • (2) How does the review reflect critical thinking?

  • (3) Are all relevant concepts & variables included in the review?

  • (4) Do summaries reflect essential components of the study (e.g., ?s, study design, results, instruments, validity, reliability issues, etc)? {See page 107 of Polit & Tatano Beck, (2004)}

  • (5) Does critique include strengths, weaknesses, limitations with design, conflicts, gaps, etc?


Critiquing criteria for review of literature1
Critiquing Criteria for Review of Literature: development

  • (6) Are both conceptual & data-based lit. included?

  • (7) Are primary & current sources used mostly (unless Hx. Research)?

  • (8) Is there a written synthesis of the reports?

  • (9) Does organization flow logically (e.g., chronologically, based on design etc)?

  • (10) Does lit. review fit purpose(s) of the current proposed study (relevant or not)?


ad