For This Assessment, You Will Develop A 3-4 Page Critique ✓ Solved

For This Assessment You Will Develop A 3 4 Page Critique Of

For this assessment, you will develop a 3-4 page critique of the quantitative design, methods, and results of a scholarly study. The ability to use quantitative approaches to analyze health care data is a vital skill for today's doctoral prepared professional. You will be expected to have the skills to critically assess the deeper analytical qualities of an article and ultimately comment on its overall validity and practical relevance. This assessment will provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate and hone your ability to analyze and critique the quantitative methods of a research study using an example from the literature.

One of the most common statistical techniques for examining the relationship of two variables is correlation analysis. The specific kind of correlational technique depends on the combination of the measurement level (that is, categorical, ordinal, or interval or ratio) of the two data variables being examined. Correlation analysis can tell us the direction and strength of relationships between two variables.

As a doctoral-level professional, your colleagues will expect you to have the skills to critically assess the deeper analytical qualities of an article and ultimately comment on its overall validity and practical relevance. Using the readings, media, and various resources in this course, you have an opportunity to engage in critical thinking to assess the analytical results of a peer-reviewed quantitative study. This assessment parallels and complements the literature critique skill set you have developed previously in your program.

Read the article by Shahnazi et al. linked earlier in these instructions. Cite and summarize the article. Include study PICO, goals, intervention, and assessment data collected. Describe, interpret, and critique the statistical testing approach. Include preanalytic normal distribution and post-intervention analytical testing. The article by Shahnazi et al. may be a helpful reference. Describe, interpret, and critique the study’s results from the analysis. Address issues of significance; type I and II errors, confidence intervals, and effect sizes.

Assess the overall methodological quality of the article using the step-by-step critique guidelines in the article by Coughlan, Cronin, and Ryan. Your paper will be 3–4 double-spaced pages of content plus title and reference pages. Font: Times New Roman, 12 points. APA Format: Your title and reference pages must follow APA format and style guidelines.

Paper For Above Instructions

The analysis of quantitative research findings is essential in the context of healthcare, where data-driven decisions can have significant implications for patient outcomes. This paper critically examines the article by Shahnazi et al. (2016), focusing on its quantitative design, methods, and results. The study investigates the effects of an educational intervention on perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, and dental caries among pregnant women, offering a comprehensive framework to analyze the statistical approaches employed by the researchers.

Article Summary

The study by Shahnazi et al. (2016) examines the impact of an educational intervention on pregnant women's understanding of their susceptibility to dental problems and self-efficacy in managing their dental health. The research employs a structured approach to gather data utilizing the PICO framework, where P (population) consists of pregnant women, I (intervention) refers to the educational program, C (comparison) is between pre-intervention and post-intervention assessments, and O (outcome) is the level of self-efficacy and perceived susceptibility regarding dental health.

Goals and Intervention

The primary goal of the study was to enhance the knowledge and self-efficacy of pregnant women regarding dental health through an educational intervention. The study implemented an educational program that included informational sessions and materials tailored to address common dental misconceptions and promote effective dental hygiene practices.

Assessment Data Collection

Data collection involved pre and post-intervention assessments using validated questionnaires. The researchers gathered baseline data on participants' perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, and dental caries presence, facilitating a thorough examination of before-and-after changes in responses.

Statistical Testing Approach

The statistical approach employed in the study included correlation analysis to investigate relationships between the educational intervention and changes in perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy. Pre-analytic assessments involved testing the normal distribution of the data to confirm the appropriateness of parametric tests. Following the intervention, various statistical tests, including paired t-tests, were applied to evaluate differences between pre- and post-intervention results.

In addressing aspects of statistical significance, the researchers reported confidence intervals for their estimates, enhancing the interpretability of effect sizes. The study's design adequately controlled for potential type I and II errors, emphasizing the importance of clear statistical reporting for valid conclusions.

Study Results Interpretation and Critique

The findings indicated significant improvements in both perceived susceptibility and self-efficacy among participants post-intervention. Statistically significant changes were observed, supported by relevant p-values and confidence intervals, which highlighted the effectiveness of the educational intervention. However, a critical analysis reveals discussions surrounding the practical significance of these results. While statistically significant, it is essential to assess whether these improvements translate into meaningful changes in actual dental health practices among the participants.

A pertinent concern about type I and II errors emerged during the critique of the results. The researchers' measures to account for these potential errors enhanced the study's reliability; however, caution should be exercised when generalizing findings from a sample population to a broader demographic. This concern prompts an exploration of external validity within the study's context.

Methodological Quality Assessment

Utilizing the step-by-step critique guidelines outlined by Coughlan, Cronin, and Ryan (2007), the overall methodological quality of the article by Shahnazi et al. (2016) appears robust. The study demonstrated clarity in its design, with clear objectives and a methodological framework that was appropriate for the research question. Furthermore, the recruitment strategy for participants allowed for a diverse sample, strengthening the external validity of findings.

On the other hand, potential limitations were identified, such as reliance on self-reported measures which may introduce response bias. Additionally, while the educational intervention was well-structured, the study could benefit from longitudinal follow-up assessments to evaluate the long-term effects of educational interventions, ensuring that the observed changes are sustained over time.

Conclusion

This critique provided a detailed examination of the quantitative methods employed in the study by Shahnazi et al. (2016) regarding the effectiveness of an educational intervention for pregnant women. The strengths of the study outweigh its limitations, indicating the importance of continuous professional growth in the critical assessment of quantitative research. Future studies should consider incorporating long-term follow-ups to evaluate sustained changes in behaviors and practices among the target population.

References

  • Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1 – Quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(11), 658–663.
  • Shahnazi, H., Hosseintalaei, M., Esteki Ghashghaei, F., Charkazi, A., Yahyavi, Y., & Sharifirad, G. (2016). Effect of educational intervention on perceived susceptibility self-efficacy and DMFT of pregnant women. Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal, 18(5), e24960.
  • Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  • Burns, N., & Grove, S. K. (2016). Understanding Nursing Research: Building an Evidence-Based Practice. Elsevier.
  • Levine, R. E., & Wiggins, N. (2016). Statistics for Health Care Professionals: A Practical Approach. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
  • Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage Publications.
  • Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2013). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 36(6), 620-628.
  • Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, J. G. (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 377-381.
  • Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Leon-Guerrero, A. (2015). Social Statistics for a Diverse Society. Sage Publications.
  • Carey, R. J., & McGarry, M. (2016). Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing: A Guide to Becoming a Provider of Care. Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Related Assignments