Analyze the validity of both attached studies.
For each article, write a response answering the questions in the following: •Box 10.1 Guidelines for Critiquing Design Elements and Study Validity in Quantitative Studies on p. 232 of Nursing Research for your quantitative article.
•Box 25.1 Guidelines for Evaluating Quality and Integrity in Qualitative Studies on p. 571 of Nursing Research for your qualitative article. •Type your answers in a Microsoft® Word document using the template provided in the Class Messages. •Include the article’s title before your answers.
Provide APA-formatted in-text citations and references for all sources. Include an APA-formatted title page.
BOX 10.1: Guidelines for Critiquing Design Elements and Study Validity in Quantitative Studies • 1. Was there adequate statistical power? Did the manner in which the independent variable was operationalized create strong contrasts that enhanced statistical power? Was precision enhanced by controlling confounding variables? If hypotheses were not supported (e.g., a hypothesized relationship was not found), is it possible that statistical conclusion validity was compromised? • 2. In intervention studies, did the researchers attend to intervention fidelity? For example, were staff adequately trained? Was the implementation of the intervention monitored? Was attention paid to both the delivery and receipt of the intervention? • 3. What evidence does the report provide that selection biases were eliminated or minimized? What steps were taken to control confounding participant characteristics that could affect the equivalence of groups being compared? Were these steps adequate? • 4. To what extent did the study design rule out the plausibility of other threats to internal validity, such as history, attrition, maturation, and so on? What are your overall conclusions about the internal validity of the study? • 5. Were there any major threats to the construct validity of the study? In intervention studies, was there a good match between the underlying conceptualization of the intervention and its operationalization? Was the intervention “pure” or was it confounded with extraneous content, such as researcher expectations? Was the setting or site a good exemplar of the type of setting envisioned in the conceptualization? • 6. Was the context of the study sufficiently described to enhance its capacity for external validity? Were the settings or participants representative of the types to which results were designed to be generalized? • 7. Overall, did the researcher appropriately balance validity concerns? Was attention paid to certain types of threats (e.g., internal validity) at the expense of others (e.g., external validity)? BOX 25.1: Guidelines for Evaluating Quality and Integrity in Qualitative Studies • 1. Did the report discuss efforts to enhance or evaluate the quality of the data and the overall inquiry? If so, is the description sufficiently detailed and clear? If not, was there other information that allows you to draw inferences about the quality of the data, the analysis, and the interpretations? • 2. Which specific techniques (if any) did the researcher use to enhance the quality of the inquiry? Were these strategies used judiciously and to good effect? • 3. What quality-enhancement strategies were not used? Would supplementary strategies have strengthened your confidence in the study and its evidence? • 4. Given the efforts to enhance data quality, what can you conclude about the study’s integrity, rigor, or trustworthiness?
The post Did the manner in which the independent variable was operationalized create strong contrasts that enhanced statistical power? Was precision enhanced by controlling confounding variables? appeared first on #.
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!Use Discount Code “Newclient” for a 15% Discount!NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.