HCA 699 What factors must be assessed when critically appraising quantitative studies (i.e., validity, reliability, and applicability)?
HCA 699 What factors must be assessed when critically appraising quantitative studies (i.e., validity, reliability, and applicability)?
HCA 699 What factors must be assessed when critically appraising quantitative studies (i.e., validity, reliability, and applicability)?
Critical appraisal of quantitative research studies is fundamental as regards their applicability to practice. The assertion receives support from Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2019) when they posit that healthcare practitioners should understand how to critically evaluate evidence so as to properly integrate it into practice. Whereas several aspects of quantitative studies can be used to assess them, validity, reliability, and applicability are the preferable parameters. Validity refers to the extent to which the results really measure what they are supposed to measure. Its assessment entails examining how well the results correspond to established theories and other measures of the same concept in a study. Reliability, on the other hand, refers to the reproducibility of a research when subjected to the same conditions. The assessment of reliability entails examining the consistency of results across time, across different observers, and across parts of the test itself. Applicability of the quantitative studies refers to the findings of the quantitative studies fitting into contexts external to the study conditions and they can receive utilization from researchers and clinicians.
The Centre for Evidenced-Based Medicine (CEBM) created a hierarchy for discerning levels of evidence to help clinicians and other users quickly determine the best evidence (2016). This table is a helpful decision tool for appraising evidence and includes 5 levels. Level 1 evidence comprises of a local and current random sample for the problem incidence, and then a systematic review for all other appraisal components including accuracy of diagnostic test used, prognosis of not adding the therapy, whether the intervention helps, common harms of the treatment, rare harms of the treatment, and if the screening is worthwhile (CEBM, 2016). Level 2 involves the use of cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, and randomized trials, levels 3 and 4 are reduced to non-randomized trials, case studies or series, and level 5 with mainly mechanism-based reasoning (CEBM, 2016). Overall the effectiveness of using a tool like this likely depends on the understanding of the different types of research studies and how well each component is assessed.
Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt (2019) also review levels of evidence and explain that there is more to assigning the level than the type of study, and that quality and impact of the evidence must also be assessed. How valid the study is as well as its direct impact on the variables under study can contribute to the level of evidence. It is also important to understand that the appraisal of evidence can depend on its source. The source of knowledge, whether from quantitative research, qualitative, clinical judgement, or expert knowledge, can demand different appraisal approaches (Melnyk & Fineout-Overhold, 2019). Overall, systematic reviews appear to be the strongest level of evidence and should be used when possible, but the topic of study may also demand other types of evidence so using a valid process to appraise all sources of knowledge is ideal. Mastering the skill of appraising evidence is important for a clincian’s practice so that the process of incorporating evidence-based research is done appropriately.
References
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2019). Evidenced-based practice in nursing & healthcare: a guide to best practice. Wolters Kluwer. Retrieved from https://www.gcumedia.com/digital-resources/wolters-kluwer/2018/evidence-based-practice-in-nursing-and-healthcare_a-guide-to-best-practice_4e.php
The Centre for Evidenced-Based Medicine. (2016). OCEBM levels of evidence. Retrieved from https://www.cebm.net/2016/05/ocebm-levels-of-evidence/
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS HCA 699 What factors must be assessed when critically appraising quantitative studies (i.e., validity, reliability, and applicability)?:.
CAT 1
Share the evidence (one source) you found to support your individual research project. How did this research validate your findings?
Brosey, L. A., & March, K. S. (2015). Effectiveness of structured hourly nurse rounding on patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 30(2), 153-159.
The above article analyzed the effectiveness of hourly rounds on patient satisfaction as well as clinical outcomes. In other words, the research analyzed the effect of hourly rounding on quality parameters with positive outcomes (Brosey & March, 2015). In the present research, I am proposing that hourly rounding is an effective tool in the prevention of patient falls. One of the issues that affect patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes is patient falls. As such, the research validates the adoption of hourly nursing rounds to address the issue of patient falls in healthcare facilities.
References
Brosey, L. A., & March, K. S. (2015). Effectiveness of structured hourly nurse rounding on patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 30(2), 153-159.