The Methodological Quality of Published Quantitative Educational Reports - Article Example

The main purpose of the study was to evaluate the methodological quality and scientific impact of nursing education reports. The major problem identified is that of funding. In order to fulfil the purpose of the study, the Medical Education Research study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) was utilised. It narrows the purpose of the study to focus on the methodological quality of published quantitative educational reports. To a certain extent, the identifiable purpose is researchable but there are likely to be problems related to this type of research. Since this study focused on published quantitative studies related to this topic, it can be seen that in some cases, these studies focus on different areas that are not directly related. The main problem is that this study is unique and it does not involve human factors so it may not be reliable to use the researches conducted by other people since they may not be directly linked to the problem identified. In other words, it may appear as if the results of this particular study are generalizations of the results found by other researchers. This entails that there is no new information generated from the study since it is mere reproduction of known information that is only interpreted in a different way. 2. The study presents well organized literature review from published medical researches on the quality education literature during the last five years. The study also utilises good citation. For instance, Cook, Berkman & Bordage (2007) reviewed articles reporting experimental studies in medical education in published in six well respected medical journals from 2003 -2004 (Yucha et al, 2011). Somehow, the literature provides rationale for the study. To a certain extent, it can be noted that the literature reviewed is related to the area of study given that it focused on aspects impacting the quality of research in medical education such as funding. However, the main weakness here is that the literature does not specifically focus on the area of nursing since the studies were about medical field research. The authors of this study, Yucha et al (2011) have critiqued the studies that were selected as samples for their research. They noted that the reporting of experimental studies in medical education were generally incomplete as postulated by Cook et al. For instance, 45 % contained literature review, 55 % presented a theoretical framework, 76% presented a statement of study purpose. This shows the shortcomings of the literature reviewed which should be taken into consideration in order to ascertain the validity and reliability of the literature used in the study. 3. The framework of the study is explicitly stated since it is mentioned that the research will specifically focus on reviewing published literature related to quality methodological and scientific impact of nursing education reports. They state from the onset that the selection criteria for the articles to be used in this study will be based on variables such as purpose, objectives, rationale, design, evaluation, interventions and significance of the study. Yuchi et al (2011) also state that article inclusion also involves factors such as quantitative research, focus on nursing students, featured descriptive, experimental as well as observational design. They also indicate that article exclusion would involve qualitative research, meta analysis, systematic and literature review. This gives us a clear framework of the study as well as the basic areas to be covered in the research. It can be observed that the framework map for the study is quite clear since it outlines the issues for inclusion as well as exclusion in the study. In other words, the map of the study narrows the focus of the study to the desired research context. The stated framework of the study is related to nursing since it clearly outlines the intention and purpose of the research. The study indicates that literature will be reviewed for the purpose of identifying the link between quality and nursing education in relation to aspects of funding. 4. The objectives and questions of the study are not clearly expressed. These are impliedly expressed since there is no section which aptly indicates that the objectives of the study include the following. It can also be seen that the research questions are not clearly outlined. However, the hypotheses of the study were clearly explained in the study and they include the following: 1).There is no association between MERSQI score and citation rates. 2) There is no association between MERSQI score and h index. 3). There is no association between MERSQI score and journal impact factor. Instead, the authors used a method of generalising the basic elements to be covered in the study. These were broadly covered under the purpose of the study which includes the following: “evaluate the methodological quality and scientific impact of nursing education reports.” These factors are linked to the area of the study though they are not explicitly stated. 5. A variable is an event or condition that the researcher measures or plans to investigate that is likely to vary (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 2008). The dependent variable in this case is the methodological quality of published research reports. The independent variables in the research are study funding and country of data collection since these are subject to change and they can also lead to or predict changes in the dependable variable. The variables have been defined on the basis of previous research and they are logically linked to the framework of the study. The researchers illustrate how these variables may change in order to affect the outcome of the study. 6. The cross sectional design was chosen for the study in order to evaluate the methodological quality and scientific impact of recent nursing education reports. This design excluded human subjects and specifically focused on published quantitative literature in the area of study. This study is specifically meant to generate new knowledge, hence, this design may not be appropriate since it excludes human factors. New information should be obtained from the participants rather than solely relying on already published literature. This will help to give insight into the area of study such that the researchers can be in a position to come up with new knowledge in the area of study. According to Oppenheim (1992), the validity and reliability of the study depends on the method used to collect data. The threats to validity are described since the study notes that it is limited to evaluation of quantitative studies published three year prior its publication. There may be some changes that could have taken place during this period and these changes would not be taken into account in the current study. As such, the results of the study may not be valid since they are based on generalisations of researches that were previously carried out. 7. The sample for the study included about 100 peer reviewed articles meeting the inclusion criteria that have been discussed in section three above. The sample also covered the period between July 2006 and December 2007. The likely bias for this study is that it solely relied on published literature which entails that there is no new data that is likely to be produced from this particular report. The main reason for this argument is that the study strongly depends on the observations made by other researchers. This means that the current authors of this study are not contributing anything new in this particular area of study. Whilst the sample size represents a large scale of population under study, it can be seen that the major weakness is that the period is short to conduct an effective study that truly reflects the real things obtaining on the ground. However, the setting used is typical of a clinical setting given that the study mainly drew literature from the studies related to clinical issues. Since the study did not include any human subject, there have been no fears of violating the rights of the people that may have been involved. 8. The Medical Education Research study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) was utilised for the study and it has been observed that this instrument is sensitive to detect small differences between the subjects. The instrument has also been tested for validity and reliability and positive results were observed. Therefore, this instrument is appropriate for this particular research since it is reliable. However, further refinements may be required in this instrument depending on the changes that may take place in the nursing profession as well as the environment in which the institutions operate. In order to improve this instrument, it is imperative to include human subjects in the research in future since they can also contribute their views about the factors they see as important in as far as evaluation the methodological quality and scientific impact of nursing education reports is concerned. This will help to improve the validity and reliability of findings of the study. 9. The elements being observed are not clearly stated in the study but they are well observed in the secondary researches that are being evaluated in order to answer the research problem stated. It can also be seen that the data collection procedure has been clearly described in the study. The study collected data from published peer reviewed articles about medical education during the period of 2003 to 2004. The articles that met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. This is very clear and it shows that the researchers were particularly focused on the research question of the study. The data collection method utilised in the study was ethical since effort was made to obtain official articles that also utilised official sources. The study utilised proper citation counts in order to acknowledge as well as to give credit to ideas and opinions that belong to other people. All research rules were duly observed by the researchers in this particular study. 10. Data was analysed using Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS version). This method is ideal for analysing quantitative data since it is computed in order to test the hypotheses of the study (Struwig &Stead, 2004) The following hypotheses were tested: 1).There is no association between MERSQI score and citation rates. 2) There is no association between MERSQI score and h index. 3). There is no association between MERSQI score and journal impact factor. ANOVA was also used to compare MERSQI scores by funding category. The results were presented in a mathematical way but this is quite complex and difficult to understand. For instance, the MERSQI score for 133 studies was 9.8+_2.2 (range 6.0.14.5). This is quite difficult to understand though the results reflect the actual findings of the study. From the analysis of data, it can be seen that the hypotheses of the study have been answered though they should have been presented in a descriptive way that is simple to understand. 11. Overall, the interpretations of the findings show that the instrument used for the study and technique for data analysis is reliable. The conclusions are based on statistical data obtained from the study and the general interpretation is that the research problem has been answered. The conclusion notes that MERSQI is applicable to assessment of nursing reports. However, the major limitation of the study is that it heavily relied on published researches which may present some form of bias of the study. In future, further research should be carried in the same field and it should involve human factors in order to make the study credible and authentic. References Oppenheim A.N. (1992), Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, New Edition, New York: Pinter Publishers. Rosnow, L.R. & Rosenthal. R. (2008). Beginning Behavioural Research: A Conceptual Primer. New Jersey: Pearson Education International. Struwig F. W. and Stead G.B. (2004), Planning, Designing and Reporting Research, CT: Pearson Education. Yucha, B.C. et al. (2011). “Methodological quality and Scientific Impact of Quantitative Nursing Education Research over 18 Months.” Nursing Education Perspectives. Read More