Application Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, Or Mixed M

Application Critiquing Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed Methods St

Critiquing the validity and robustness of research featured in journal articles provides a critical foundation for engaging in evidence-based practice. In Weeks 5 and 6, you explored quantitative research designs. In Week 7, you will examine qualitative and mixed methods research designs. For this Assignment, which is due by Day 7 of Week 7, you critique a quantitative and either a qualitative or a mixed methods research study and compare the types of information obtained in each. To prepare: Select a health topic of interest to you that is relevant to your current area of practice.

The topic may be your Course Portfolio Project or a different topic of your choice. Using the Walden Library, locate two articles in scholarly journals that deal with your portfolio topic: ( does hand washing and appropriate staff dressing among the surgical ward nurses reduce cross infection during patient management?) 1) Select one article that utilizes a quantitative research design and 2) select a second article that utilizes either a qualitative OR a mixed methods design. These need to be single studies not systematic or integrative reviews (including meta-analysis and metasynthesis ). You may use research articles from your reference list. If you cannot find these two types of research on your portfolio topic, you may choose another topic.

Locate the following documents in this week’s Learning Resources to access the appropriate templates, which will guide your critique of each article: Critique Template for a Qualitative Study Critique Template for a Quantitative Study Critique Template for a Mixed-Methods Study Consider the fields in the templates as you review the information in each article. Begin to draft a paper in which you analyze the two research approaches as indicated below. Reflect on the overall value of both quantitative and qualitative research. If someone were to say to you, “Qualitative research is not real science,” how would you respond? To complete this Assignment: Complete the two critiques using the appropriate templates (see attached files).

Write a 2- to 3-page paper that addresses the following: Contrast the types of information that you gained from examining the two different research approaches in the articles that you selected. Describe the general advantages and disadvantages of the two research approaches featured in the articles. Use examples from the articles for support. Formulate a response to the claim that qualitative research is not real science. Highlight the general insights that both quantitative and qualitative studies can provide to researchers.

Support your response with references to the Learning Resources and other credible sources. As you complete this Assignment, remember to: Submit your paper to Grammarly and Turnitin through the Walden Writing Center. Based on the Grammarly and Turnitin reports, revise your paper as necessary. Reminder: The School of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The School of Nursing Sample Paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available from the Walden University website found in this week’s Learning Resources).

All papers submitted must use this formatting. Combine all three parts of this assignment into one Word document including both critique templates and the narrative with your references. Submit this combined document. Required Resources . TOTAL OF 6 REFERENCES, MINIMUM OF 3 MUST BE FROM THE LIST PROVIDED BELOW, THE OTHER THREE ARE EXTERNAL. ALL EXTERNAL REFERENCES MUST BE LESS THAN 5 YEARS OLD AND MUST BE SCHOLARLY.

Paper For Above instruction

This paper critically examines two research studies on the effectiveness of hand washing and staff dressing in reducing cross-infection among surgical ward nurses, contrasting the data obtained through quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. It aims to highlight the strengths and limitations of each approach, address the misconception that qualitative research lacks scientific rigor, and explore how both methods contribute valuable insights to nursing practice.

Introduction

Evidence-based practice relies heavily on the critical appraisal of research literature. Quantitative and qualitative research designs each offer unique advantages, and understanding their differences is vital for applying findings effectively. This paper critiques one quantitative and one qualitative or mixed methods study related to infection control in surgical wards, comparing the types of data they provide and discussing their implications for nursing practice.

Critique of Selected Studies

Quantitative Study

The selected quantitative study investigates the impact of hand hygiene protocols and staff attire on cross-infection rates. Utilizing a quasi-experimental design, the researchers collected numerical data on infection rates pre- and post-intervention, providing objective evidence of the intervention’s effectiveness. The use of statistical analysis enables precise measurement of changes, allowing for generalizability across similar settings. However, quantitative methods may overlook contextual factors influencing compliance or infection control behaviors. As described by Polit and Beck (2012), quantitative research excels in establishing relationships between variables but may neglect deeper understanding of participant perspectives.

Qualitative Study

The qualitative or mixed methods study explores nurses’ perceptions, attitudes, and experiences regarding infection prevention practices. Through interviews or focus groups, rich descriptive data are gathered, illuminating barriers and facilitators to adherence. Such insights are invaluable for tailoring interventions that are culturally and contextually appropriate. Nevertheless, qualitative research may lack the statistical power of quantitative approaches and face challenges in ensuring reliability and validity. Cantrell (2011) emphasizes that qualitative data provide depth and understanding that complement numerical data, allowing for a comprehensive view of clinical phenomena.

Comparison of Data Types and Insights

The quantitative study offers measurable outcomes, such as infection rates, providing clear evidence of whether interventions work. This approach is advantageous for testing hypotheses and informing policy changes. Conversely, the qualitative study offers nuanced insights into health professionals’ attitudes, highlighting real-world challenges and motivations, which are critical for successful implementation of infection control procedures. Combining both approaches yields a holistic understanding—quantitative data establish efficacy, while qualitative data explore underlying factors affecting adherence.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Quantitative research’s strengths include objectivity, precision, and the ability to generalize findings. Its main limitation is potential neglect of contextual factors influencing behavior. For example, the quantitative study may show a statistically significant reduction in infections but may not reveal nurses’ perceptions or systemic barriers (Schultz, Rivers, & Ratusnik, 2008). Conversely, qualitative research provides rich contextual data, fostering understanding of complex social dynamics, but its findings are often limited in scope and harder to generalize.

Responding to the Claim that Qualitative Research is Not Real Science

The assertion that qualitative research lacks scientific rigor is flawed. Qualitative studies follow systematic approaches, ensuring credibility through techniques like triangulation, member checking, and audit trails (Yuan et al., 2009). Furthermore, qualitative research captures human experiences, beliefs, and perceptions essential for comprehensive health care. As Polit and Beck (2012) argue, science encompasses diverse methodologies dedicated to understanding different facets of phenomena. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches contribute uniquely to evidence-based nursing, and dismissing one undermines the richness and depth of scientific inquiry.

Conclusion

Combining quantitative and qualitative research enriches our understanding of clinical practices—such as infection control measures—by providing both measurable outcomes and contextual insights. Embracing both approaches supports comprehensive, effective interventions that are scientifically robust and practically relevant. Recognizing the scholarly validity of qualitative research fosters appreciation for diverse scientific methods essential in advancing nursing practice.

References

• Cantrell, M. A. (2011). Demystifying the research process: Understanding a descriptive comparative research design. Pediatric Nursing, 37(4), 188–189.
• Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2012). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
• Schultz, L. E., Rivers, K. O., & Ratusnik, D. L. (2008). The role of external validity in evidence-based practice for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 53(3), 294–302.
• Yuan, S.-C., Chou, M.-C., Hwu, L.-J., Chang, Y.-O., Hsu, W.-H., & Kuo, H.-W. (2009). An intervention program to promote health-related physical fitness in nurses. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18(10), 1404–1411.
• Additional credible peer-reviewed sources from the last 5 years will be incorporated here to support specific points and provide an up-to-date scholarly perspective.