Critique of a Research Report:
Comparison of Communication Outcomes in Traditional versus Simulation Strategies in Nursing and Medical Students
University of Athabasca
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...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document