Evaluating the Research Process

Topics: Scientific method, Research, Peer review Pages: 5 (1455 words) Published: April 25, 2013
Evaluating the Research Process
Information in research is rooted from a process or scientific methodology played out by the researcher. In order to make an evaluation come to fruition of the original hypothesis, there are steps taken in a developed conceptual framework. What is chosen from the researcher or group of researchers initiating the subject or sample will aid in the conceptual framework. Many questions have to be answered according to the criteria before arriving at a valid and reliable conclusion. In an article chosen from a previously collected assignment, the following perspective will attempt to assess the use of its literature in review, ethical considerations, terms of statistical analysis, and what was found through the end concluding references of the study. The form and construction of how the literature of a research study is reviewed, contributes insight to the study being evaluated. The review often tends to summarize the source of information used to conduct the research. In a written study given, the information is often organized to convey to the audience on more certain technical or factual terms.(CSSAC, 2012) The literature review will often re-organize the facts in order to offer text in more simple terms. In the research of the article in context, the literature review used case studies of 800,000 subjects over a four month period. The text published in the study stated that an updated system was needed to establish a computable integration warehouse. This was in suggested original process terms for new electronic records systems. Thus, allowing for an easier statistical evaluation of patients in an already initialized data resource bank. The existing EMR (electronic

Evaluating the Research Process 3
medical records) system was not created for subjected criterion. By developing a more efficient transitional program, mass conducted research could be extracted without any cross referencing. Most published studies have been peer reviewed which is defined as “is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field.” (LINFO) Many professional fields trust peer reviews extensively, including scientific research, computer software development, medical service, and law. In many cases contributing to medicine or law it is legislatively mandated. Otherwise in cases such as software development it just occurs through process. (LINFO) Although there can be bias in peer reviews, they are consistent. When any research study is under construction there is likely a subject, person, group of persons, or sample in question for evaluation. With that there is an ethical stipulation that must be adhered to for the research to be ordained. Specifics on ethics to be considered would be; 1. that all parties involved with the study are well informed of the details and have given consent to be made a part of the study 2. When interviewing subjects use correct and sensitive verbiage in order not cause emotional damage or any physical duress. 3. Make clear of any anonymity in findings 4. Select beneficial subjects not ones that are just easily persuaded 5. If there is an approval board to case the study criteria and results be sure to get all permission required. Approval Boards (IRB) are developed to facilitate the highest standards of conduct in the scope of ethics. The board constitutes directive protocol through objectively approving and reviewing submitted research and requests. Any and all human focus tests must receive approval by the

Evaluating the Research Process 4
federally funded IRB (federal regulations code 45 CFR 46). (AU,2012) 6. Finally use best judgment when conveying or analyzing results. (Driscoll, D., Brizee, A.) Among the patients that were selected for the study, at the Kyoto University Hospital in Japan, all were held in accordance to...

References: American University (AU). Human Subjects Research IRB. (2012) Retrieved from
CSSAC. Literature Reviews. University of North Carolina College of Arts and Sciences. (2012)
Retrieved from http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/literature-reviews/
Driscoll, D., Brizee, A. Purdue Online Writing Lab. Ethical Considerations In Primary Research.
(2012) Retrieved from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/559/02/
GWU. Tools for Preparing Literature Reviews. (2000) Retrieved from
LINFO. The Linux Information Project. Peer Review Definition. (2005) Retrieved form
Shaw, M.J., Li, J. Electronic Medical Records HIPAA and Patient Privacy. (2008) Retrieved
from http://www.igi-global.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/gateway/article/full-text-pdf/2486
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Evaluating the Research Process Paper
  • Evaluating the Research Process Essay
  • Evaluating the Research Process Essay
  • Evaluating the Research Process Essay
  • Evaluating the Research Process Essay
  • Evaluating the Research Process Essay
  • Evaluating the Research Process Essay
  • Evaluating the Research Process Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free