Quantitative And Qualitative Techniques Are The Main Approac ✓ Solved

Quantitative And Qualitative Techniques Are The Main Approaches

Quantitative and qualitative techniques are the main approaches used to evaluate evidence in nursing research. Quantitative technique entails assessment of data and comparison of various measures used in the research study. Metrics applied in quantitative method of evidence evaluation include standard deviation, mean or average, as well as other statistical parameters. In addition, quantitative criteria is a measurable formal tool used for predicting, and ensures objectivity of both the results and applied variables. Conceptual framework in respect to qualitative methods of evaluating evidence involve assessment of the process, meanings, experiences, and perceptions that study subjects including patients with reference to a particular variable under evaluation.

However, qualitative approach is not used in measurable parameters. Nevertheless, in order to analyze the relevance of evidence, interpretation we use of emphatic comprehensions. The above implies that the findings and variables relies on the context of research study. In conducting a research, the researcher often needs evidence from a variety of articles, journals, and/or other studies to direct, guide, and support his or her research. However, it is not every evidence that the researcher finds online, in journals, or in the library that can provide valuable evidence in research. In other words, evidence must be reliable and valid before it can be used in research, and must take the study’s methodology, as well as other important factors into consideration.

Two different methods for evaluating evidence would include criteria pertaining to publication characteristics and criteria pertaining to study design and relevance to the study and variables of interest. Evaluating evidence through its publication characteristics involves determining the source or evidence is peer-reviewed or whether it is a practice-based publication that publishes expert opinions about a specific issue. Another publication characteristic that must be considered when evaluating research evidence is the year of publication. Evidence published not more than five years ago are considered more appropriate than older evidence. Lastly, language of publication should also be considered when evaluating research evidence because of translation problems. On the other hand, evaluating evidence through the study design and study relevance criteria involves determining the kinds of research methodology used in the evidence and the relevance of such evidence to your own study or in explaining your variables of interest, and the applicability of such evidence to nursing practice.

The hierarchy of research designs and levels of scientific evidence suggests that Meta-Analysis, Systematic Reviews, and Randomized Controlled Trials provide a more reliable and valid evidence in nursing research.

Paper For Above Instructions

Nursing research is essential for providing a strong foundation for practice and improving patient outcomes. The evaluation of evidence within this field is predominantly conducted through two main approaches: quantitative and qualitative techniques. Each method offers unique advantages and is suited for different types of inquiries. This paper explores the characteristics, applications, and significance of these two vital approaches in nursing research.

Quantitative Techniques in Nursing Research

Quantitative research is focused on quantifying the problem by way of generating numerical data or data that can be transformed into usable statistics. It enables researchers to uncover patterns and predict outcomes through examining relationships among variables. The primary tools of quantitative research involve measurements that can be precisely quantified. Key metrics include standard deviation, mean, and various statistical parameters that ascertain the validity and reliability of findings (Liddle, Williamson & Irwig, 2016).

Quantitative research often employs experimental designs, wherein researchers manipulate an independent variable to measure its effect on a dependent variable. For example, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is instrumental in evaluating the effectiveness of a new nursing intervention. RCTs eliminate bias, allowing for better inference and generalizability of the results to the broader population (Bowen & Forrest, 2017). Moreover, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which compile data from multiple studies, further enhance the reliability of findings by creating a comprehensive picture of the available evidence.

Qualitative Techniques in Nursing Research

Conversely, qualitative research delves into understanding phenomena from a holistic perspective. It is concerned less with measurement and more with the meanings, experiences, and perceptions of individuals participating in the study. This approach is essential for exploring complex phenomena where the context is crucial, such as patient satisfaction or the psychological impact of chronic illness (Jake-Schoffman et al., 2017).

Qualitative research methods often utilize interviews, focus groups, and participant observations, allowing researchers to gather rich, detailed information about subjects' experiences. Unlike quantitative methods, qualitative analysis often involves thematic analysis, where common patterns and themes are identified across data sources, providing contextual insight into the research questions posed.

The Importance of Evaluating Evidence

The significance of evaluating evidence in nursing practice cannot be overstated. It is critical to ensure that the findings utilized for clinical decision-making are robust, reliable, and applicable to the patient population being served. When conducting research, it is vital to differentiate among various types of evidence based on publication characteristics and study design.

Peer-reviewed articles typically lend a higher level of credibility and are preferred over non-peer-reviewed sources. Evaluation criteria should also include the publication date, with recent sources being prioritized to ensure that clinicians are relying on the most current and relevant information (East Carolina University Libraries, 2020). Moreover, scrutiny of study design is imperative in determining the strength of the evidence. Evidence accrued from systematic reviews and RCTs is often at the pinnacle of the evidence hierarchy, indicating higher reliability and validity (Treadwell et al., 2011).

Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Techniques

It is increasingly recognized that integrating both quantitative and qualitative methods can provide richer, more comprehensive insights into nursing research questions. Known as mixed-methods research, this approach capitalizes on the strengths of both methodologies. For instance, a study may employ quantitative methods to measure the effectiveness of a particular intervention while simultaneously utilizing qualitative interviews to explore participants' experiences and satisfaction levels. Such comprehensive data can inform nursing practice in a multifaceted fashion, accommodating both statistical evidence and individual patient narratives, ultimately leading to holistic patient care.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both quantitative and qualitative techniques hold critical roles in the evaluation of evidence in nursing research. While quantitative methods offer robust statistical validity and generalizability, qualitative methods provide rich contextual insights into patient experiences and perceptions. Effective nursing practice relies on the integration of these approaches to foster evidence-based care, ensure patient-centered practices, and enhance overall healthcare outcomes.

References

• Bowen, D. M., & Forrest, J. L. (2017). Translating Research for Evidence-Based Practice. Access, 10–14.
• E. Carolina University Libraries. (2020). Evidence-Based Practice for Nursing: Evaluating the Evidence. Available from: [URL]
• Liddle, J., Williamson, M., & Irwig, L. (2016). Method for evaluating research and guideline evidence. Sydney: NSW Health Department.
• Jake-Schoffman, D. E., Silfee, V. J., Waring, M. E., Boudreaux, E. D., Sadasivam, R. S., Mullen, S. P. ... & Pagoto, S. L. (2017). Methods for evaluating the content, usability, and efficacy of commercial mobile health apps. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 5(12), e190.
• Treadwell, J. R., Singh, S., Talati, R., McPheeters, M. L., Reston, J. T. (2011). A Framework for “Best Evidence” Approaches in Systematic Reviews. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2011 Jun.
• Other relevant references to be added here.