The purpose of research in nursing and medicine is to acquire knowledge that would improve nursing and medical practices. The research paper that will be critiqued is “Comparison of Communication Outcomes in Traditional versus Simulation Strategies in Nursing and Medical Students”. The aim of this critique is to evaluate the Substantive and Theoretical, Methodological, Ethical, Interpretive as well as the Presentation and Stylistic Dimensions of the research paper mentioned above. Following the evaluation of these aspects will be a conclusion.
Discussion of Substantive and Theoretical Dimensions
The research problem as well its significance, were indeed relevant to nursing and health-care. The report states that “The purpose of this study is to understand interprofessional communication (nursing and medicine) within the context of the educational environment (tradition versus simulation)” (Reising, Carr, Shea, & King, 2011). The research problem in this paper was concerning the increase in apprehension within health-care. This showed that the research incorporates grounded theory in its conceptual framework as it uses sociological principles (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011).
After analysis of the literature review, the need for the research study to take place seems to be necessary. This is attributable to the fact that, there was a lack of investigation concerning features related to simulation which could have been investigated but were not as yet explored. The title of this research indicates that it aims to compare two phenomena, tradition strategies and simulation strategies. This particular idea brings one to question the applicability of the methods used in regards to the research question.
Through the investigation of the research paper it is apparent that congruency does indeed exist. This is related to the fact that, the research does not only use qualitative methods (grounded theory mentioned previously) but includes quantitative methods as well. The research study contained: 1) group comparisons between subjects which allows for the comparison issue in question. 2) Prospective observance of the independent and dependent variables and, 3) The research had been conducted via an experimental design making it possible for the researchers to manipulate the variables (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011).
Discussion of Methodological Dimensions The choice of a descriptive survey design was an appropriate decision for the question at hand as it made qualitative and quantitative data obtainable between the four groups, therefore allowing the research to potentially have greater validity (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011). The results showing group comparisons between subjects – comments of nursing students in comparison to medical students as well as those between round table and simulation groups – makes the research seem as though two experiments took place simultaneously.
This may seem as a strength in the research method as it meant more data and information was acquired and produced relating to the problem, leading to greater understanding of the issues at hand. However, it also appears to weaken the methodological dimensions of the research; the reason being that obtaining additional data not absolutely related to the research question indicates that resources where not exclusive to the question at hand. This can translate to the possibility that the data that may be less accurate (Johnson & Christensen, 2010).
The usage of both quantitative and qualitative methods has allowed the research paper to have strengths in that it is complementarity. Data is represented through numbers as well as words (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011). Hence, not only does it directly answer the close ended questions of quantitative method, but more so, it explains them through the open-ended questions of qualitative method. As good as the mixed approach of methods used may be for the complementarity of the research, it has also weakened the external validity of the research.
The usage of a quantitative method has caused its validity to be weak due to the usage of a fairly small sample group and the inability of a generalization to be formed ; as the aim of external validity is to form generalizations (Johnson & Christensen, 2010). However, internal validity still does exist as quantitative methods have also been included in the study, thus allowing a cause and effect relationship to be observed. The population chosen was relevant to the research problem, as it included students in both the nursing and medical field.
This adds strength to the relevance of the methodological dimensions of the study. As briefly stated above, the sample size was fairly small causing the external validity of the study to be weakened. It should also be noted that the ratio of medical students to that of nursing students, within the group samples, were not equal; this could have potentially been seen as a bias (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011) however, the study had made mention of the fact that the method used was in fact that of convenience sampling and acknowledges the limitation. (Reising, Carr, Shea, & King, 2011).
The data collected was of both quantitative and qualitative nature, as the mixed method approach was the chosen method of research for this study. The quantitative data as it seems, has only one aspect of reliability, stability. Stability is the only form of reliability present because it allows a test-retest of the data to occur being that it was through a survey- which may be reproduced easily. In addition, the reliability of the data increases to some degree as there was no variation in the administration of the survey; the amounts of questions as well as the questions themselves were the same for all participants.
In terms of the credibility it too exists to some extent as proof of triangulation and persistent observation of the data was present. On the other hand the data could have possibly been more credible had there been prolonged engagement of the data collection (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011). Within the data, conformability is present as there is congruence in the answers given by individuals of definite groups. This is seen in the qualitative data were nursing students of the simulation group stated that they felt they should follow directions in comparison to medical students who felt more as eaders.
This data was collected from the students individually, within their specified groups. And so it can be seen that congruence in the data is present as the individuals of groups had similar thoughts about their roles (Reising, Carr, Shea, & King, 2011). The study made note of the reliability of its data as it stated under its limitations that “…no tools existed that were specific enough to measure the concepts under study” (Reising, Carr, Shea, & King, 2011) . The previous statement made by the study is the only one mentioned regarding its credibility, reliability and validity.
The conclusions and the critique that has been made regarding the data collection were due to analysis of the data as well as the methodological dimensions of the study. Discussion of Ethical Dimensions All aspects of human dignity seemed to have been respected as it has been indicated that the Institutional Review Board had analyzed and approved the study before it had taken place (Reising, Carr, Shea, & King, 2011). Knowing this means that the participants were able to practice their self–determination as they voluntarily chose to do the survey (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011).
This also brings into perspective the fact that the study was overt, as the participants were aware of all aspects of the study that were taking place. This could potentially cause bias in the data collected. It is also noted in the results report that participants had undergone stress. This brings into question the beneficence and nonmaleficence of the research. It is the researchers’ ethical duties to protect the vulnerability of the participants and avoid any form of harm that could happen. Stress is in essence a type of danger to one’s mental, emotional, and physical well-being (Rosdahl & Kowalski, 2008).
This confirmation of harm having taken place, affects the study’s ethical dimensions. Discussion of Interpretive Dimensions The implications section of the study was informative as it discussed the relevance of the study to nursing and medical education. It was also appropriate as it discussed the essential results of the study and its limitations. There were however, other limitations which the study had not mentioned– some of which have been previously discussed. The interpretations are consistent with the results (Reising, Carr, Shea, & King, 2011) however they do not take the limitations in to account.
It is noted that the only time possible errors in data collection and limitations to the research were mentioned, was in the limitations portion of the study; which was exceedingly short in comparison to the other aspects of the study. The discussion section of the study had however, explained many of the other features that were related to the conceptual framework of the study; furthermore, the interpretation of the study was appropriate to the cultural context of the qualitative nature of the study.
It was consistent with the results and no generalizations were detected as they would not have been justifiable due to the limitations of the study. The researchers did not make much field notes, journals, or recordings of any actions, emotions or behaviors witnessed, from themselves or the participants. This could be seen as a shortcoming. The only mention of any emotional related phenomena was that of how the participants felt about their roles and how they (the participants) felt in regards to the encounter they had faced in the study- it was not explained in as much as detail as it could have been.
Despite its length, which was relatively short, the conclusion had made some relevant points. However, it could have been much stronger had it further explained the concepts it had mentioned such as “high-fidelity simulation”. Discussion of Presentation and Stylistic Dimensions The presentation and stylistic dimensions to some extent seem to have been taken into consideration. For example the organization appears to be well thought-out allowing the dimensions to flow. However, the study had some information that seemed to be missing.
This could be seen as a lack of in-depth organization of the study (Reising, Carr, Shea, & King, 2011). A missing factor was the logical aspect of the study. There was a lack in logical explanations regarding the choices made to conduct the research. The researchers did not explain why they had taken a mixed method research approach. Moreover, had the tables and charts which they had included not been further explained, a reader would not be able to understand the results. In short the quantitative information would not be able to “stand alone” (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011).
Nonetheless, according to the aspects of a proper research paper, it would be safe to say that the majority or the required aspects of a valid / or well written research paper were included. There were no indications of biases or exaggeration in the language of the study. The title for one has the ability to capture a certain audience –those in health care fields such as nursing and medicine. The summary of the literature review was rather short and not very insightful or informative of the literature review itself.
As mentioned before some aspects of the report did not have much detail – literature review summary, limitations, conclusion- while others such as the results portion went into great depth (Reising, Carr, Shea, & King, 2011). This shows that the researchers had a significant amount of data collected and were certain that their data was congruent to the results which they had anticipated. The formerly mentioned action may also be interpreted as a technique used by the researchers to portray that the data collected is valid. Nevertheless this is a research study and the goal is to produce data.
Thus having a large portion of the research paper contributed to the results is not a flaw. Throughout the study there was not much use of jargon other than that of “high fidelity simulation”. The paper to some extent seemed rather informal as the language was very basic and no research or scientific terms were used. This was very noticeable after reading the literature review. Other alternatives which could have been used to strengthen and improve all the dimensions of the study as a whole – include.