Did the report discuss efforts to improve or evaluate the data quality and the overall investigation? If yes, is the description detailed and clear enough? If not, was there any other information available that allowed you to draw conclusions about the quality of the data, analysis, and interpretations?
Yes. The study detailed many initiatives to improve and assess the quality of the data and the overall investigation. First, the researchers adopted a reputable data collection method commonly used in qualitative research; the use of semi-structured interviews. Secondly, the researchers familiarized themselves with the participants before the actual data collection took place. This enabled the researchers to understand how the organization works as well as build a relationship of trust with the participants hence enhancing the quality of the data. Site triangulation was also used by the researchers to enhance the quality of the data. The nurses interviewed were drawn from two different hospitals and this helped minimize the studying of certain local factors common in one hospital. Moreover, the sampling of different nurses from different hospitals helped create diversity hence obtaining information from divergent perspectives and this enhanced the credibility and the quality of the data and the overall inquiry. Another effort discussed that enhanced the quality of the data is that, the respondents were given the opportunity to refuse to participate in the study. This means that, only those who were genuinely willing to contribute to the study were sampled. This helped to ensure that the respondents gave honest and credible answers as they were not forced. This and the fact that the questions were open ended also ensured that the informants gave the data freely and without any restrictions.
Which specific techniques (if any) did the researcher use to enhance the quality of the inquiry? Were these strategies used judiciously and to good effect?
One of the techniques used by the researchers is site triangulation whereby the researchers interviewed respondents from different hospitals so as to get divergent views and verify consistency of the data. Another technique used is prolonged engagement where the researchers familiarized the participants with the study before the actual collection of data took place. Persistent observation was also used when the researchers recorded the interviews in order to achieve an adequate depth. Thick description is another strategy that helped the reader get a clear picture of the study participants thereby enhancing the credibility of the study. And yes, these strategies were judiciously used in that it helped foster the credibility and quality of the data both from the eyes of the reader and those of the researcher.
What quality enhancement strategies were not used? Would supplementary strategies have strengthened your confidence in the study and its evidence?
Peer debriefings was not used and this is an important strategy that would have exposed the inquiry to the scrutiny of the peers. This would have validated the study hence improving on data quality. Member checks is also another strategy that the researchers did not use. This strategy would have worked in strengthening my confidence in the study as it would have ascertained the accuracy of the data captured. Method triangulation should also have been used by the researcher in order to validate data, for instance, using two other methods like focus group discussions and case studies in addition to the interviews.
Given the efforts to enhance data quality, what can you conclude about the study's integrity, rigor, or trustworthiness?
What I can conclude on this study is that, the inquiry demonstrated integrity, rigor and trustworthiness. Despite the researchers not using some strategies that might have helped in enhancing the quality of their inquiry, they have managed to present a conclusive case that their study is academically thorough. Credibility, dependability and transferability are all issues that have well been addressed in the study.
Matar, E. M., Arabiat, D. H., & Foster, M. J. (2016). Oral glucose efficacy on neonate's pain responses at the NICU: A quasi experimental trial of two clinical procedures. Applied Nursing Research, 32, 36-40. doi:10.1016/japnr.2016.04.002
Was there adequate statistical power? Did the manner in which the independent variable was operationalized create strong contrasts that enhanced statistical power? Was precision enhanced by controlling confounding variables? If hypotheses were not supported (e.g. a hypothesized relationship was not found? Is it possible that statistical conclusion validity was compromised?
Yes. There was adequate statistical power as the sample population was large. The operationalization of the independent variable created a strong contrast that helped enhance statistical power by reducing the random error and explaining it with a control variable. The precision was also enhanced by having a precise way of measuring the constructs hence increased effect size. Since the researchers were making numerous comparisons, it is possible that they may have compromised the statistical conclusion validity.
In intervention studies, did the researchers attend to intervention fidelity? For example, were staff adequately trained? Was the implementation of the intervention monitored? Was attention paid to the delivery and receipt of the intervention?
Yes. The researchers attended to intervention fidelity from the beginning of the study. One of the ways that they did this was that they ensured that the intervention dose of oral glucose was the same for all the neonates for each condition. They also monitored the intervention delivery by using standardized methods to measure the pain score at three time frames while paying attention to the delivery and receipt of intervention.
What evidence does the report provide that selection biases were eliminated or minimized? What steps were taken to control confounding participant characteristics that could affect the equivalence of groups being compared? Were these steps adequate?
The researchers selected participants based on some common characteristics so as to eliminate and minimize bias. Those who did not meet the criteria were excluded from the study. To control confounding participant characteristics, the researchers used restrictions e.g. the restriction of neonates of diabetic mothers. The researchers also used matching of the neonates' ages of at least 32 weeks. And yes, these steps were adequate in controlling confounding participant characteristics that could affect the equivalence of groups being compared.
To what extent did the study design rule out the plausibility of other threats to internal validity, such as history, attrition, maturation, and so on? What are your overall conclusions about the internal validity of the study?
The study ensured that the participants were not self-selected into the study so as to avoid any effects on the dependent variable hence ruling out any differential selection biases. Moreover, the study used valid and reliable instruments to measure the pain score of the neonates hence ruling out any threats to internal validity. My conclusion regarding the internal validity of the study is that, the research indicates a high degree of internal validity therefore, demonstrating a strong cause-and-effect relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
Were there any major threats to the construct validity of the study? In intervention studies, was there a good match between the underlying conceptualization of the intervention and its operationalization? Was the intervention "pure" or was it confounded with extraneous content, such as researcher expectations? Was the setting or site a good exemplar of the type of setting envisioned in the conceptualization?
There were no major threats to the construct validity of the study as there was no extraneous content. There was a good match between the underlying conceptualization of the intervention and its operationalization in the intervention studies since the definitions provided were adequate and exact. Furthermore, all the pertinent attributes of the construct were integrated and the constructs were relatively easy to assess. The intervention was pure as the researcher used standardized procedure for the participants hence the situational variables were controlled. Also, the setting was good as the researchers kept the surrounding as natural as possible.
Was the context of the study sufficiently described to enhance its capacity for external, validity? Were the setting or participants, representative of the types to which results were designed to be generalized?
Yes. The context of the study was sufficiently described and some of the strategies used to enhance external validity included the participant characteristics. They all shared a common characteristic in that they were all neonates of gestational age 32 weeks and above and this was representative of the types to which results were designed to be generalized.
Overall, did the researcher appropriately balance validity concerns? Was attention paid to certain types of threats (e.g. internal validity) at the expense of others (e.g., external validity)?
Though the experiment was not perfect, the researchers generally balanced validity concerns as they tried to control threats to both external and internal validity such as selection and instrumentation.
.
References
Matar, E. M., Arabiat, D. H., & Foster, M. J. (2016). Oral glucose efficacy on neonate's pain responses at the NICU: A quasi experimental trial of two clinical procedures. Applied Nursing Research, 32, 36-40.
Rhéaume, A., Dionne, S., Gaudet, D., Allain, M., Belliveau, E., Boudreau, L., & Brown, L. (2015). The changing boundaries of nursing: a qualitative study of the transition to a new nursing care delivery model. Journal of clinical nursing, 24(17-18), 2529-2537.
Stringer, E. T. (2013). Action research. 4th ed. Sage Publications Inc.
Van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. New York, NY. Rutledge.
