Analysis And Evaluation Of Frameworks And Theories ✓ Solved

Analysis And Evaluation Of Frameworks And Theoriestheory Analysis Is P

Analysis and Evaluation of Frameworks and Theories Theory analysis is particularly helpful in research because it provides a clear idea of the form and structure of the theory in addition to the relevance of content, and inconsistencies and gaps present. The ‘missing links’ or inconsistencies are fruitful sources of new research ideas. They also point to the next hypotheses that need to be tested. —Walker and Avant, 2011, p. 206 Nurse scientists often find that examining the literature is a productive way to see how existing frameworks and theories have been applied in other research studies. By engaging in this process, they may gain insights about a particular framework or theory, be able to identify gaps in research, or uncover new questions they are eager to explore.

In this discussion, you analyze existing frameworks and theories using the procedure proposed by Walker and Avant. Your analysis should provide an objective understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each framework or theory. This, in turn, should enable you to evaluate whether the framework or theory is useful for the purposes of your theoretical foundation for a program of research.

To prepare, review the information that Dr. Hathaway presents in the Week 1 media program, “Theoretical Foundation for Research,” regarding the phases of theory development and the similarities and differences between frameworks and theories. Search the literature and identify two frameworks or theories that may be useful for investigating your phenomenon of interest. Review the procedure for theory analysis presented in Chapter 12 of Walker and Avant (2011). Apply these steps to each framework or theory you have selected and identify the strengths and weaknesses of each framework or theory. Determine whether additional development or refinement is needed (i.e., for each framework, identify which aspects would require further research in order for it to meet the requirements of a theory). Evaluate the value of each framework or theory for addressing your phenomenon.

Determine which framework or theory has the most potential for use as part of your theoretical foundation of your research. Think about any questions you have related to theory analysis and evaluation. By Day 3, post a description of the two frameworks or theories you analyzed and evaluated, and explain why each is considered either a framework or a theory. For framework(s) you have selected, explain which aspects would require further research to meet the requirements of a theory. Explain why one has the most potential for use in your theoretical foundation for research, noting its strengths and weaknesses. Also pose any questions that have arisen through your examination of frameworks or theories. Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The process of analyzing and evaluating frameworks and theories is crucial in guiding research, ensuring that the selected conceptual models are appropriate and robust enough to support empirical investigation. Walker and Avant’s (2011) structured approach provides researchers with a systematic way to assess the relevance, strengths, and limitations of existing frameworks and theories, thus informing their suitability for specific research purposes.

Selection of Frameworks and Theories

In choosing frameworks or theories relevant to my research phenomenon—namely, patient adherence to medication regimens—I identified two key models: the Health Belief Model (HBM) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). The HBM is a framework, while the TPB is a theory, both widely used in health behavior research.

Application of Walker and Avant’s Procedure

Using Walker and Avant’s (2011) steps, I systematically analyzed each model:

Health Belief Model (HBM)

- Strengths: The HBM offers a comprehensive view of individual perceptions influencing health behaviors, such as perceived susceptibility and severity, which can guide targeted interventions. Its clarity and simplicity facilitate application in diverse health contexts.

- Weaknesses: The model primarily focuses on individual cognition without adequately addressing social or environmental factors, which are also influential in medication adherence. It also lacks specific propositions that can be empirically tested beyond its conceptual nature.

- Refinement Needed: To meet the criteria of a more complete theory, the HBM requires integration with models accounting for social influences and contextual factors that impact health behaviors.

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

- Strengths: The TPB extends the Theory of Reasoned Action by including perceived behavioral control, broadening its explanatory power. It has demonstrated predictive validity across numerous health-related behaviors.

- Weaknesses: The TPB assumes rational decision-making and may overlook emotional or habitual influences. Its emphasis on intention as a proxy for behavior can sometimes misrepresent actual adherence.

- Refinement Needed: To elevate the TPB to a full-fledged theory, longitudinal studies are needed to confirm causal pathways, and integration of emotional and habitual factors could enhance its explanatory capacity.

Evaluation of Utility and Potential

The TPB, with its broader scope and empirical validation, possesses greater potential as a foundational framework in my research on medication adherence. Its focus on behavioral intention aligns well with the aim to modify patient behaviors. Conversely, the HBM remains valuable but may require substantial refinement to address social determinants influencing adherence.

Conclusion

Both models provide useful perspectives, but the TPB’s comprehensive approach and empirical support make it more suitable for developing targeted, theory-driven interventions. Additional research to incorporate social and emotional factors could strengthen its applicability and robustness as a theoretical foundation.

References

• Walker, L. O., & Avant, K. C. (2011). Strategies for Theory Construction in Nursing. Pearson.
• Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the Health Belief Model. Health Education Monographs, 2(4), 328-335.
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
• Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A Decade Later. Health Education Quarterly, 11(1), 1-47.
• Glanz, K., & Rimer, B. K. (2008). Theory at a Glance: A Guide for Health Promotion Practice. National Cancer Institute.
• Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The Theory of Planned Behavior: A review of its applications to health-related behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion, 11(2), 87-98.
• Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and Reliability in Quantitative Research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 18(3), 66-67.
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs. Houghton Mifflin.
• Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and Processes of Self-Change of Smoking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390-395.
• Bartholomew, L. K., Parcel, G. S., & Kok, G. (2011). Intervention Mapping: Designing Theory- and Evidence-Based Health Promotion Programs. John Wiley & Sons.