Tag: Unit 5

As a consumer of research reports, the most important things for me in the methods and results section of a high-quality quantitative research report are…

1. A clear procedure that provides statistically valid and credible results. The procedure of a study must explicitly explain why a research design was chosen and appropriate for the study. Readers can only understand the overall study if the steps and variables considered are explained for contextual reasoning. Clarity in the procedure also helps readers understand the findings and correlations between the variables. The procedure must also produce valid and credible results that consider all possible variables, statistics, and instruments used.
2. Detailed explanation of the results that include descriptive statistics. While descriptive statistics are important, the mass of numbers, symbols, and statistic names at the end can be overwhelming for me. A detailed interpretation of these results and the analysis of the results in relation to the original hypothesis helps me focus on the study’s purpose.
3.  An ethical procedure is highly important as I believe every participant deserves respect and the assurance that their best-interest is considered. With past experience reading studies in psychology, it is horrifying to read how studies can turn inhumane even with the initial innocent intentions. Ethics must be carefully examined as all possible outcomes – good or bad – are plausible.

Question:

Do you have an example of an ethically controversial study you participated in or read? What was the result of the study?

Jenkins & Stewart’s (2010) study will be evaluated through Plano-Clark & Creswell’s (2015) seven criteria for evaluating data analysis and results in a quantitative research report on a three-point scale below:

1. The data were rigorously scored and prepared (2/3) – Jenkins & Stewart (2010) explain their scoring process and data preparation for each variable thoroughly which consists of using previously tried survey instruments and scales such as Sherman’s scale (p. 50). There is a general consistency in the distribution of the survey, but because the exact questionnaires are not provided, it is unknown whether the questions are good indicators of the variables.
2. Good descriptive analyses were conducted (3/3) – The tables provided reveal good descriptive analyses and consideration of the central tendency and variability in the research; the study outlines the mean, correlation matrix, and standard deviation of each variable (Jenkins & Stewart, 2010, p. 51). Z-scores are also used to “compensate for restriction of range on the basis of the Likert scale” (p. 50) used in the survey. The descriptive analyses were appropriately calculated for each variable.
3. Good hypothesis testing procedures were used (2/3) – Although a null hypothesis is not stated, three alternative hypotheses of the relationship between managers’ leadership and nurses’ job satisfaction. The researchers also provide an Alpha level, collects data, computes the selected variables and p value, and makes a decision to confirm the original hypotheses. Due to the lack of a null hypothesis, no rejection or failure to reject the null is available.
4. The results are comprehensive (3/3) – Table 1 of the study outlines the demographic characteristics of the participants’ ages, ethnicity, and age (Jenkins & Stewart, 2010, p. 50), and the reliability of the instruments are tested (p. 50). The results and discussion at the end of the study adequately report the outcome for each research question and hypotheses proposed at the beginning.
5. The results include sufficient information (3/3) – Jenkins & Stewart (2010) reports the statistic, its value, the associated p value, and significance in Table 3 and data analysis. The table is clear and consistent. The analysis explain the results clearly and its relation to the hypotheses.
6. The data analysis represents a good process (3/3) – The data analysis provided a linear and objective explanation of the data collected that discuss each considered variable and the correlation or lack of correlation between them.
7. The results provide a good explanation of the study’s purpose (3/3) – Readers are provided a clear understanding of the study’s purpose and the relationship between the results and original intent of the study provided in the introduction. The statistics reported are all reasonable responses to the study’s consideration of the relationship between a manager’s commitment to serve and use of role-inversion with nurse satisfaction” (Jenkins & Stewart, 2010, p. 49).

References

Jenkins, M., & Stewart, A. C. (2010). The importance of a servant leader orientation. Health Care Management Review, 35(1), 46-54.

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Link to activity question: https://create.twu.ca/ldrs591-sp18/unit-5-learning-activities/

Plano-Clark & Creswell (2015) provide a seven criteria for “evaluating the participants and data collection in a quantitative report” (p. 249). I will rate Jenkins & Stewart’s (2010) study according to the seven criteria below:

1. The sampling strategy is appropriate and justified (2/3) –  Jenkins & Stewart (2010) do not explicitly explain the reasoning for their sampling strategy, but they do explain the benefits of the “large, multidivisional health care system” (p. 49) they chose to sample and the use of a survey is good measure of understanding an individual’s personal background and satisfaction with their workplace. Weaknesses in this area include a lack of clarity in their procedure and variety in their sample size due to the restrictions found in sampling a single health care system. Providing an example of the four questionnaires used would be greatly beneficial.
2. The sample size is appropriate and justified (1/3) – Plano-Clark & Creswell (2015) state a survey study should have “approximately 350 individuals (or more)” (p. 238) participating in the survey, and should provide “an explanation as to why this [sample size] was used” (p. 237). Although Jenkins & Stewart (2010) justify the reason for choosing the specific health care system they surveyed, they only received 210 completed surveys and do not provide further explanations to why they chose their sample size.
3. High quality instruments are used to gather data (3/3) – Jenkins & Stewart (2010) used “Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006) 23-item survey” (p. 50) which measured each item “using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree” (p. 50); the average of these scores were then  turned to z-scores. Besides using this tested survey instrument, the researchers also examined “the reliability of the instrument” (p. 50) by “examining it relative to accepted measures of transformational leadership” (p. 50).
4. The data gathered using ethical quantitative procedures (3/3) – “Participants were ensured confidentiality, and data were collected without identifiers” (Jenkins & Stewart, 2010, p. 249) to “prevent the risk of harm to participants. This demonstrated Jenkins & Stewart’s (2010) consideration and respect for their participants’ career and relationships in their work places.
5. The data are gathered using standardized quantitative procedures (2/3) – The researchers generally provided a consistent procedure to the distribution of the survey as most nurses received the the survey during “scheduled staff meetings” (p. 49), but for those who did not attend, the directions were given in a packet and the researchers could not enforce the completion of these surveys in similar conditions. Furthermore, it is unknown what specific questions were given to participants to judge whether the questions were “closed-ended questions” (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 249)
6. The study has a high level of internal validity (2/3) – The study measured important variables such as commitment to serve and satisfaction, and used a valid experimental design procedure. A limitation mentioned is that job satisfaction as a dependent variable “does not reflect the multidimensional nature of the concept” (Jenkins & Stewart, 2010, p. 52).
7. The study has high level of external validity (1/3) – The study considers control variables such as “gender, ethnicity, and self-reported score on the individual’s most recent performance evaluation” (Jenkins & Stewart, 2010, p. 249), but the sample size is not large enough, and the focus on a single health care system is not a representative sample. Jenkins & Stewart (2010) acknowledge the limitation of this sample size as “there could be some systemic bias that remains within the data” (p. 53).

References

Jenkins, M., & Stewart, A. C. (2010). The importance of a servant leader orientation. Health Care Management Review, 35(1), 46-54.

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Link to activity question: https://create.twu.ca/ldrs591-sp18/unit-5-learning-activities/

Jenkins and Steward (2010) designed a research to analyze how servant leadership effected the nurses’ job satisfaction. Using Plano-Clark and Crewell’s (2015) criteria for evaluating a quantitative research design, I will rate Jenkins & Steward’s (2010) article on a three-point scale based on the seven criteria below:

1. The choice of the research design is appropriate and justified (2/3) – Jenkins & Stewart (2010) used the survey research design. Nurses were asked to complete four questionnaires: “two regarding their perceptions of their immediate department head” (p. 50), one regarding their demographic characteristics, and one regarding their individual job satisfaction. Due to the intention of analyzing job satisfaction, the use of  a survey design is fitting as the design addresses the attitudes, opinions, and behavior of nurses under their current leadership. Despite this, there is no direct explanation for why the specific design was selected.
2. Good quantitative procedures are used to select and assign participants (2/3) – While the introduction states “the United States is on the precipice of a great wave of RN shortages” (Jenkins & Stewart, 2010, p. 46), the study only surveys “a population of nurses working for a large, multidivisional health care system” (p. 49). Although a broader selection of nurses from different health care systems would have benefited the study, the study had reason for its selection; the system chosen had a “researcher association and access to data” (p. 49).
3. Good quantitative data collection procedures are used (3/3) – Data was collected at “regularly scheduled staff meetings” (p. 49), and for those that did not attend, surveys were distributed to them in a packet with instructions. This allowed all nurses from different departments within the specific health care system to have the opportunity to participate in the survey.
4. Good quantitative data analysis procedures are used (3/3) – The variables selected for analysis – commitment to serve, job satisfaction of nurses, and the gender, enthnicity, and self-reported performance scores – are well considered and appropriate. They address the purpose of the study.
5. Good quantitative results an conclusions are reported (3/3) – The study carefully considers the correlating results between each variable which support the hypotheses proposed at the beginning of the study. “Claims made are appropriate for the design” (Plano-Clark & Creswell, 2015, p. 211), and supported by the results.
6. The study used a rigorous research design (3/3) – The problem and purpose of the study fits well into the methods and questionnaires used. Seeking to describe the “trend” of job dissatisfaction in nursing and the possible increase of satisfaction through servant leadership, the survey research design is logical and coherent.
7. The use of the quantitative research design addressed the study’s purpose (2/3) –  The results and conclusion provide significant results where “departments where staff perceived that managers had higher servant leadership orientation demonstrated significant positive impact on individual employee job satisfaction” (Jenkins & Stewart, 2010, p. 52) fulfills the study’s intent, but as the study mentioned, there are limitations to the research such as the study focused solely on one health care system and does not well-represent the general population of the US.

References

Jenkins, M., & Stewart, A. C. (2010). The importance of a servant leader orientation. Health Care Management Review, 35(1), 46-54.

Plano-Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2015). Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Link to activity question: https://create.twu.ca/ldrs591-sp18/unit-5-learning-activities/