자연주의적 탐구조사(Naturalistic Inquiry)

Undertaking a review of the literature is an important part of any research project. The researcher both maps and assesses the relevant intellectual territory in order to specify a research question which will further develop the knowledge base. However, traditional 'narrative' reviews frequently lack thoroughness, and in many cases are not undertaken as genuine pieces of investigatory science. Consequently they can lack a means for making sense of what the collection of studies is saying. These reviews can be biased by the researcher and often lack rigour. Furthermore, the use of reviews of the available evidence to provide insights and guidance for intervention into operational needs of practitioners and policymakers has largely been of secondary importance. For practitioners, making sense of a mass of often-contradictory evidence has become progressively harder. The quality of evidence underpinning decision-making and action has been questioned, for inadequate or incomplete evidence seriously impedes policy formulation and implementation. In exploring ways in which evidence-informed management reviews might be achieved, the authors evaluate the process of systematic review used in the medical sciences. Over the last fifteen years, medical science has attempted to improve the review process by synthesizing research in a systematic, transparent, and reproducible manner with the twin aims of enhancing the knowledge base and informing policymaking and practice. This paper evaluates the extent to which the process of systematic review can be applied to the management field in order to produce a reliable knowledge stock and enhanced practice by developing context-sensitive research. The paper highlights the challenges in developing an appropriate methodology.

Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review

Undertaking a review of the literature is an important part of any research project. The researcher both maps and assesses the relevant intellectual territory in order to specify a research question which will further develop the knowledge hase. However, traditional 'narrative' reviews frequently lack thoroughness, and in many cases are not undertaken as genuine pieces of investigatory science. Consequently they can lack a means for making sense of what the collection of studies is saying. These reviews can he hiased by the researcher and often lack rigour. Furthermore, the use of reviews of the available evidence to provide insights and guidance for intervention into operational needs of practitioners and policymakers has largely been of secondary importance. For practitioners, making sense of a mass of often-contrad ictory evidence has hecome progressively harder. The quality of evidence underpinning decision-making and action has heen questioned, for inadequate or incomplete evidence seriously impedes policy formulation and implementation. In exploring ways in which evidence-informed management reviews might be achieved, the authors evaluate the process of systematic review used in the medical sciences. Over the last fifteen years, medical science has attempted to improve the review process hy synthesizing research in a systematic, transparent, and reproducihie manner with the twin aims of enhancing the knowledge hase and informing policymaking and practice. This paper evaluates the extent to which the process of systematic review can be applied to the management field in order to produce a reliable knowledge stock and enhanced practice by developing context-sensitive research. The paper highlights the challenges in developing an appropriate methodology.

Nursing Research Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice

Aim. The aim of this paper is to distinguish the integrative review method from other review methods and to propose methodological strategies specific to the integrative review method to enhance the rigour of the process.

Background.  Recent evidence-based practice initiatives have increased the need for and the production of all types of reviews of the literature (integrative reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and qualitative reviews). The integrative review method is the only approach that allows for the combination of diverse methodologies (for example, experimental and non-experimental research), and has the potential to play a greater role in evidence-based practice for nursing. With respect to the integrative review method, strategies to enhance data collection and extraction have been developed; however, methods of analysis, synthesis, and conclusion drawing remain poorly formulated.

Discussion.  A modified framework for research reviews is presented to address issues specific to the integrative review method. Issues related to specifying the review purpose, searching the literature, evaluating data from primary sources, analysing data, and presenting the results are discussed. Data analysis methods of qualitative research are proposed as strategies that enhance the rigour of combining diverse methodologies as well as empirical and theoretical sources in an integrative review.

Conclusion.  An updated integrative review method has the potential to allow for diverse primary research methods to become a greater part of evidence-based practice initiatives.

/pdf/the-integrative-review-updated-methodology-j4hzxjmz6b.pdf

The integrative review: updated methodology

Part I: FOUNDATIONS OF NURSING RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE 1: Introduction to Nursing Research in an Evidence-Based Practice Environment 2: Translating Research Evidence into Nursing Practice: Evidence-Based Nursing 3: Generating Evidence: Key Concepts and Steps in Qualitative and Quantitative Research Part II: CONCEPTUALIZING A STUDY TO GENERATE EVIDENCE FOR NURSING 4: Conceptualizing Research Problems, Research Questions, and Hypotheses 5: Finding and Critiquing Evidence: Research Literature Reviews 6: Developing a Theoretical or Conceptual Context 7: Generating Research Evidence Ethically Part III: DESIGNING A STUDY TO GENERATE EVIDENCE FOR NURSING 8: Planning a Nursing Study 9: Developing an Approach for a Qualitative Study 10: Designing Quantitative Studies 11: Enhancing Rigor in Quantitative Research 12: Undertaking Research for Specific Purposes 13: Developing a Sampling Plan Part IV: COLLECTING RESEARCH DATA 14: Designing and Implementing a Data Collection Plan 15: Collecting Unstructured Data 16: Collecting Structured Data 17: Assessing Measurement Quality in Quantitative Studies 18: Developing and Testing Self-Report Scales Part V: ANALYZING AND INTERPRETING RESEARCH DATA 19: Analyzing Qualitative Data 20: Enhancing Quality and Integrity in Qualitative Research 21: Describing Data through Statistics 22: Using Inferential Statistics to Test Hypotheses 23: Using Multivariate Statistics to Analyze Complex Relationships 24: Designing a Quantitative Analysis Strategy: From Data Collection to Interpretation Part VI: BUILDING AN EVIDENCE BASE FOR NURSING PRACTICE 25: Integrating Research Evidence: Meta-Analysis and Metasynthesis 26: Disseminating Evidence: Reporting Research Findings 27: Writing Proposals to Generate Evidence Methodologic References Glossary

Nursing Research - Generating And Assessing Evidence For Nursing Practice

Scale developers often provide evidence of content validity by computing a content validity index (CVI), using ratings of item relevance by content experts. We analyzed how nurse researchers have defined and calculated the CVI, and found considerable consistency for item-level CVIs (I-CVIs). However, there are two alternative, but unacknowledged, methods of computing the scale-level index (S-CVI). One method requires universal agreement among experts, but a less conservative method averages the item-level CVIs. Using backward inference with a purposive sample of scale development studies, we found that both methods are being used by nurse researchers, although it was not always possible to infer the calculation method. The two approaches can lead to different values, making it risky to draw conclusions about content validity. Scale developers should indicate which method was used to provide readers with interpretable content validity information.

/pdf/the-content-validity-index-are-you-sure-you-know-what-s-1hg4basbc2.pdf

The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? critique and recommendations

The perfect complement to Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice, Ninth Edition, this knowledge builder helps you develop and reinforce basic skills essential to nursing research.

Resource Manual for Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice

Nurse researchers typically provide evidence of content validity for instruments by computing a content validity index (CVI), based on experts' ratings of item relevance. We compared the CVI to alternative indexes and concluded that the widely-used CVI has advantages with regard to ease of computation, understandability, focus on agreement of relevance rather than agreement per se, focus on consensus rather than consistency, and provision of both item and scale information. One weakness is its failure to adjust for chance agreement. We solved this by translating item-level CVIs (I-CVIs) into values of a modified kappa statistic. Our translation suggests that items with an I-CVI of .78 or higher for three or more experts could be considered evidence of good content validity.

Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations

Nurse researchers typically provide evidence of content validity for instruments by computing a content validity index (CVI), based on experts' ratings of item relevance. We compared the CVI to alternative indexes and concluded that the widely-used CVI has advantages with regard to ease of computation, understandability, focus on agreement of relevance rather than agreement per se, focus on consensus rather than consistency, and provision of both item and scale information. One weakness is its failure to adjust for chance agreement. We solved this by translating item-level CVIs (I-CVIs) into values of a modified kappa statistic. Our translation suggests that items with an I-CVI of .78 or higher for three or more experts could be considered evidence of good content validity. 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Res Nurs Health 30:459-467, 2007

/pdf/focus-on-research-methods-is-the-cvi-an-acceptable-indicator-1c7cnx29u8.pdf

Cheryl Tatano Beck

Papers

Nursing Research - Generating And Assessing Evidence For Nursing Practice

The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? critique and recommendations

Resource Manual for Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice

Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations

Focus on research methods. is the cvi an acceptable indicator of content validity? appraisal and recommendations