I will be critiquing two different articles. Both studies are nursing studies that evaluate outcomes. I will be following specific key points for a quantitative perspective and a qualitative perspective. There is a guideline that I will be following for each article that includes identifying and examining the data collection and data analysis methodologies used in each study. The names of the articles are The Experience of Patients Undergoing Awake Craniotomy and The Effects of Crossed Leg Blood Pressure Measurement.
The references will also be reviewed to determine validity and relationship to the new study. Data Collection Quantitative Study: The operational and conceptual definition is congruent. The key variables were operationalized using the best possible method and with adequate justification. Specific instruments were adequately described and were good choices, given the study purpose, the variables being studied, and the study population. The instrument used specifically was a blood pressure monitor. The blood pressure cuff size, dimensions, and inflation pressure were described.
The blood pressure monitor was adequately pretested and calibrated before the study began by a biomedical technician (Foster-Fitzpatrick, Ortiz, Sibilano, Marcantonio, & Braun, 1999). It can be determined that the data collection methods provided data that was reliable and valid. The intervention executed was having patients cross their legs and measuring their blood pressure. The intervention was adequately described and implemented. The implementation of the intervention was faithful to its plan (Polit & Beck, 2012).
The data was gathered by trained nurse researchers (Foster-Fitzpatrick et al. , 1999). The same blood pressure monitor was operated during the data collection to minimize biases (Foster-Fitzpatrick et al. , 1999). Qualitative Study: The methods for gathering data were appropriate and the data was gathered using interviews over a span of 2 days (Palese, Skrap, Fachin, Visioli, & Zannini, 2008). It could be determined that triangulation was achieved since the interviews were performed on numerous occasions and during assorted circumstances.
The researchers did ask the right questions and make the right observations, which were also recorded in an appropriate fashion. It can be concluded that sufficient data was gathered, given the specifics required to be a factor in this study. The data collected was adequately rich in depth and detail. The data was gathered using interviews with open-ended questions. The interviews were audio-recorded. The data compilation tools were valid and reliable for this study. Data collection was adequately described and appeared appropriate for this type of study.
Bias was kept to a minimum. The researchers were to determine and recognize ideas that may have prompted or provoked personal biases, they also had to recognize any personal experiences or beliefs that might have influenced what they were going to hear and report (Palese et al. , 2008). Data Analysis Quantitative Study: Analyses were appropriated to answer the research question and to test the hypothesis. The researchers performed various blood pressure measurements on a sample of hypertensive males to determine if the crossing of a leg has an effect on blood pressure measurements.
Appropriate statistical methods were used given the level of measurement and assumptions of the test. However, there was only one specific group that was the variable, 100 hypertensive males whose ages ranged from 31 to 81. Hypothesis testing allows researchers to make objective decisions whether study results likely reflect chance sample differences or true population differences (Polit & Beck, 2012). In this study there was no control group. Then, how can we determine that crossing your leg would increase blood pressure. It is challenging to support whether a type I and type II errors were actually minimized or avoided.
The intervention studies did not perform an intention-to-treat analysis. All of the participants were treated and there was no omitted information. The participants also did not abandon the study. The problems of missing values were evaluated and adequately addressed. The limitation of the study includes gender and sample size. The researchers discussed the weaknesses with solutions for future studies. The researchers recommend replicating this study using a larger sample size that includes females. They consider that these changes would increase the significance of the results.
The findings are discussed and interpreted. Information about statistical significance and confidence interval is presented and reviewed. There was good use of tables and figures that included titles and headings that were clearly and appropriately labeled. The results were also clearly displayed in tables with identifiable titles and labeled headings. The study included descriptive statistics. The study described the main characteristics in the dataset. The mean and standard deviation for each blood pressure measurement was calculated before and after crossing of the legs was performed by the study subjects.
Inferential statistics were also present in this study. In order to test mean differences with three or more groups, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical test is used. This research study conducted a repeated-measure ANOVA, which is when there are three or more measures of the same dependent variable for each participant (Polit & Beck, 2012). Measuring blood pressure at various intervals and under numerous conditions for the same subject is one incident where this type of testing can be used. . The model for this design was repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).
The level of significance in this study was stated at < 0. 05 for all three effects in the model, (before crossing the legs, during legs crossed, and after having crossed the legs). This significance level indicates that researchers accept a risk that out of 100 samples drawn from a population, a true null hypothesis would be rejected 5 times (Polit & Beck, 2012). Given the level of measurement and the nature of the hypothesis, the results were adequate. However, I believe that further research is required to have a stronger correlation.
A wider sampling population should be used in future research to have more accurate conclusions. Qualitative Study: The data management and data analysis methods were sufficiently described. The data analysis strategy was compatible with the research tradition. It was also compatible with the nature and type of data gathered. The findings are effectively summarized. There was good use of citations from the patient interviews. The researchers were able to abstract concepts that were found in the data collected from the interviews.
Although each patient had a unique experience, the researchers were able to categorize concepts from the data that was analyzed. Researchers were able to group these concepts into pre-operative concerns, intra-operative concerns, and post-operative concerns. Since there was limited research conducted on intra-operative experiences there were limits with the ability of being able to link it to previously performed studies. However, the study did recognize the limits it had. Since this is a qualitative study, generally these studies cannot be generalized to the population.
Qualitative researchers are not concerned with the general population, but rather with subjects experiences (Polit & Beck, 2012). The researchers did acknowledge the importance of the healthcare team members to think about patient’s experiences in order to better understand how to prioritize the needs of the patient (Palese et al. , 2008). I believe that biases were kept to a minimal considering the implementations that the researchers were exposed to at the beginning of the study and before they were exposed to the interviews or observations.
The composition and exploration of the data produced genuine and significant descriptions of the experiences that the patients whom were subjects had. Summary After reviewing both articles and critiquing each one, I believe to have a better understanding about the difference between a quantitative research study and a qualitative research study. Data collection should be systematic and meticulous. Both studies gathered their data systematically and meticulously. In view of the statistical analysis, levels of measurement should be defined as nominal, ordinal, interval or ratio level data.
Sources of data can be documentary sources as primary and secondary sources, field sources as subjects in person, conditions, environment and events that are observable and measurable, and historical data. Both of the studies also had these types of sources. The methods of collecting data include surveys questioning using interview schedule and questionnaires, observation techniques with the help of structured or unstructured instruments, and measuring with standardized instruments. Both of the studies also used some of these methods for collecting data.
The purpose of analyzing data in a study is to describe the data in meaningful terms. For example, the study in reference to blood pressure changes utilized tables for interpretation. Statistics help to answer important research questions and it is the answers to such questions that further our understandings. It is required the researcher to have an understanding of what tools are suitable for a particular research study. Depending on the kinds of variables identified (nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio) and the design of particular study, number of statistical techniques is available to analyze data. The data collection and data analysis methodologies used varied and followed the particular need of each research study. The researchers followed the research process guidelines and methodologies. Although, both studies had some weaknesses, they were both performed adequately, using appropriate techniques and instruments. They were also both performed with integrity, discussing their limitations and weaknesses.