NURS3044 Research Methodology


Topic:-Assessing quantitative research quality

1. Did the study contain a research question

Don’t use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
NURS3044 Research Methodology
Just from $8/Page
Order Essay

2. Is there an established study objective or hypothesis?

3.If the answer is yes, does it directly relate the research question to the aim or hypothesis?Background/Literature Review

1.Is it able to provide relevant literature on the topic/issue being studied?

2.Does the reviewer use a critical approach to reviewing literature (ie. does it show comparison and contrast of information).

3.Does it detect any gaps in existing literature?

Is the study justified?

1. Does the statement on ethics approval exist?

2. Is there a statement regarding informed Consent?

3. What other ethical concerns are addressed?

4. List any other relevant ethical tissues that you believe are important

5. Explain the importance of the four ethical aspects listed above

Study Design

1.What was your chosen design for this research?

2.Is this the right choice to answer the research question?

How many people participated in the study.

This was a good number.

Are the participants targeted appropriate?

Was it possible to adequately describe the participants (i.e. background information).


1. What intervention was it?

2. What comparison was used?

3.Was the intervention described in a way that could be reproduced in practice?

Methods / Data Collection

1.Describe the various methods and measurements used to gather data (information). Hint: It is possible that different methods/measurements were used to collect different kinds of information.

2. Were these methods/measurements confirmed?

3.Why is validity important when conducting quantitative research

Data Analysis

1. Briefly describe the statistical tests that were used for the analysis of this study’s data.

2. Were the tests clearly described?

3.What was this research study’s level of significance (p value).

4.How does this help to interpret the study results?

Research Findings

1. What were the main conclusions of this study?

2. Do the research findings match quantitative research?


1.What were some limitations to the study?

(both students and the authors accepted these limitations).

2. Explain the reasons they are limited in your study.

Clinical Practice

1.Briefly address the implications of these findings in Nursing/Midwifery Practice and/or Patient Care.

Also, discuss the generalisability.

2.All things considered, should the study’s results be used in clinical practice?

Answer to Question: NURS3044 Research Methodology

1. Did the study contain a research question

Bellinegeti et al. (2016) found that the research paper doesn’t use hypothesise in the application of hypotheses. It does not allow two factors to be tested at once.

The answer to a research question determines the method used.

The research questions can be used to answer quantitative or qualitative measurements.

You can use the research questions in both types of studies.

In this research, however, the criteria for deciding whether to use hypothesis are met. The following questions are used to gauge: Is the study quantitative?

Yes, the study employs an experimental approach.

Yes. Can there be any predictions about the phenomenon. Yes.

Given that all answers to the question are positive, no research questions have been proposed (Farrugia und al., 2010,).

2. Is there an established study objective or hypothesis?

Bellingeri i et al. (2016) study’s aim is to compare PP and NS solutions, assessing inflammatory symptoms, wound size, and determining the clinical efficacy.

This case’s study hypothesis was stated as an aim. However, research aims statements could also serve as research hypothesis.

3.If Yes, how does the hypothesis/aim directly relate with the research question

The study should conclude with comments about the assignment. This is a significant indicator of the relationship.

It is possible to see a relationship between the aim and the research question. This is important, even though it may not be directly indicted. But, when it is critically considered it brings out its meaning.Background/Literature Review

1.Does the book contain pertinent literature related to the problem/issue being studied?

In the Bellingeri i et al. (2016), literature review aims for examining what other scholars and authors have published on the topic.

It provides current knowledge and includes theoretical methodology as well substantive information.

Literature reviews were used. However, some literature was not up to date according to the year of the study. The study was completed in 2016 and published 18 years ago.

2.Does it apply a critical approach when reviewing relevant literature (ie. Does it demonstrate comparison and contrast of information?)

Bellingeri, et al. (2016) used three comparative analogues to access the literature. A good literature analysis compares and contrasts and gives evaluations of the major theories and ideas in the scholarly literature.

Ti does the job of comparing andcontrasting the arguments.

The study compares and contrasts the views of other researchers working in the field on the topic.

The researcher can draw on the vast knowledge and experience that has been gained over the years through critical evaluations of the subject matter (Aweyard, 2014).

3.Does the software identify gaps in the literature

Bellingeri, et al., (2016). Paragraph 7. The research has shown how wound healing can be done.

It has provided a comprehensive explanation of the experiments and studies done on the subject.

This finally narrows down the subject matter. Studies on wound healing using NS or PP solutions have been published. As such, the study is carrying out research to fill in the gaps.

4.Does it justify the study?

(2016) In the Bellingeri research, the literature does not support the validity of the research. The literature also suggests that the studies were done sometime back. For example, it is stated that ‘numbers of authors’ investigated the clinical efficacy PP solution for managing of

Chronic wounds.

Moeller et al”s study aims at comparing the PP and NS options for chronic wound care management.

1. Is there a statement about ethics approval?

Bellingeri et al. (2016). (pp 163–paragraph 1) clearly states that ethics approval is a way to conform with the ethics guidelines. It allows the patients signed informed consent so they can continue with the research. The following statement was used by the study.

2. Is there a statement regarding informed Consent?

Bellingeri, et al., study (2016). (pp 163–paragraph 1, ‘ethics’ statement. Patients signed an informed permission form before they began the study ,………

Hardicare (2014) explains that valid informed consent means that the user has full permission to conduct research on samples and respondents.

3. What are the other pertinent ethical issues that need to be addressed?

Other ethical concerns relevant to the topic were privacy issues.

Bellingeri et. al. (2016) illustrates this by using a third-party research center to hide envelopes from the research and to protect the privacy of clients.

Every patient was able to open their own forms in order to safeguard their privacy (Wilcoxon und al., 2013,).

4.List other important ethical tissues you consider to be relevant

Bellingeri, et al. (2016) considers ethical issues such as the principle of non-harm, which states that the research should not pose any harm to the participants.

Respect for anonymity and confidentiality in regards to patient diseases is another ethical issue. Because patient information is valuable, it should be kept secret.

5.Explain the importance of the four ethical aspects listed above

The norms or ethical aspects are vital in the first. They encourage the pursuit of truth, knowledge, and avoidance error. Second is the fact that they foster co-operation among diverse stakeholders from different disciplines. Third is the fact that it holds researchers accountable for their tasks. Fourth is the promotion of moral and social values, such as aspects related to human rights, animal warfare and compliance with the law.

1.What was this study’s design? (Bellingeri. et. al., 2016).

This is a study where the investigator or researcher knows the treatment allocation but not the participants.

It refers to an experiment where the researcher knows what subjects are receiving, but the participants do not know.

In this study, patients were randomly assigned to either the NS or PP solutions.

2.Is this the right choice to answer the research question?

The study selection was appropriate because the researcher wanted the effectiveness of both treatments. Therefore, it was crucial to know the efficacy level in order to accurately assess this.

1.How many participants were there?

Bellingeri et. al. (2016) study (pp.164 paragraph 6), used 289 sample sizes from patients with similar clinical conditions, compositions, and wound characteristics.

RCT results are more reliable if the sample sizes were determined in RCT.

If the treatment has a small effect, it can cause rejection of the null hypothesis.

2.Is this enough?

The reliability and validity of the results will be affected by how small the sample is.

It is not possible to reject the null hypothesis and they do not have any effect on the treatment.

An increase in the number of subjects increases the RCT’s effect, even though a smaller effect is desirable (Glennesrtser und al., 2013).

Inadequate data can have an impact on the general ability to transmit the results of research to the population.

3. Were the intended participants appropriate?

The less bias data that is used in research, the better. In Bellingeri, et al.’s (2016) study (pp.164, paragraph 8), targeted respondents were effectively enrolled and those who did NOT meet the criteria were effectively excluded for the purpose of an uniform analysis.

(Reyes and al., 2016, p. 16 paragraph 8) The participants in the targeted study were significant about the disease they were experiencing and the appropriate treatment treatment they would receive.

4. Were participants accurately described (ie. background information).

The randomization of the groups is an effective way to analyse the different groups.

It is important to know the extent of analysis.

The participant’s description was accepted in that they had similar characteristics. This was done for the purpose to homogenize the results and establish the effect of treatment. (Begg, 1996)


1. What was the purpose of the intervention?

The study’s intervention was to use either PP or NS as the treatment.

The wounds could be accessed using a standard tool to assess.

The treatment was performed on both the control and treatment group for comparison.

2. How was this comparison performed?

In the Bellingeri et al. (2015) study, the comparison involved both the same treatment and the difference. However, from the study, it was revealed that there were not significant changes in the treatment given to either of the groups.

The pain score associated to the wound and its dressing was the comparison indicator.

3.Was the intervention described in a way that could be reproduced in practice?

The intervention was described well in that the standard tools of measure used were appropriate, and the procedure was followed.

The intervention was effectively applied to the study groups using a standard procedure which can be used in other settings.

McCloskey, et al. (2014). BWAT is a well-known tool for pain assessments that can be easily replicated in other settings.

Data collection methods

1.Report the different methods and measurements used to gather data in this study. (Hint: it is possible to use different methods/measurements to collect different kinds of information).

Bellingeri, et al. (2016) included clinical data signs as part of their study.

Bates Jensen Wound Assessment tool (BWAT), which was used to measure the pain experienced by patients, was a modified Likert-scale that assessed different parameters.

Further pain assessment was performed using the visual analogue scaling (VAS), measurements of wound size were made by using sterile rulers. Photographs were used as observatory tools.

2. Were these methods/measurements confirmed?

Validity can be defined as the use instruments to measure the intended purpose. Validity contents are content related or constructs related. Criterion related is another example.

Validity measures define the relationship as it exists in the logical progression of the relationship. ,

3.Why is validation important in quantitative research

Validity is crucial in the sense that it requires the analysis of the logical relations that exist across the measurement protocols. (Burgoon&Hale et al.1987)

Data Analysis

1.Indicate the statistical tests that were used for analysing the data in this research:

Bellingeri, et al., 2016, are the statistical tests used to measure the group.

This allows me to measure deviations of the estimated parameter.

This is how I compare the results of the tests from the groups.

2. Were these tests clearly outlined?

3. What was the level or significance of the research study (p value)?

4.How does the above help to interpret the study results?

The null hypothesis is rejected if there’s no evidence of a significant relationship between the two groups.

Research Findings

1. What were the main conclusions of this study?

Bellingeri (2016) studied that the PP solution showed a greater efficacy than the NS for reducing inflammation.

These findings revealed that there was no statistically significant relationship between Treatment 0 & Treatment 4 as well as no difference in pain assessments between the two.

2. Do the research findings match quantitative research?

These results are used to make quantitative research decisions and, in particular, randomised control trial studies.

Cross tabulation of results can be used for comparing the results of the two groups.

You should be careful when taking measurements, as small differences could be due sampling error.

1.What were the limitations in this study?

(both students and the authors accept limitations).

Bellingeri, et al. (2016) showed that the duration of the difference observed was what limited the observation.

It was a measure that used tools to focus on the pain, rather than checking the rate of healing.

This author recognizes the need to compare and contrast different methods using longer observation methods.

Because of the nature the experiment was, it was not possible to measure the study nature using double blinded methods.

Another problem is the gender bias. This bias can work for or against patients, but it doesn’t cause concern because it has had very little impact on the study.

2.Explain why they are limitations in the study.

Limitations in the research (Bellingeri (2016) are those that the researcher is unable to control. They can also affect the results of the study.

Clinical Practice

1.Briefly explain the implications of these findings in Nursing/Midwifery Practice and/or Patient Care.

Also, discuss the generalisability.

These findings have the potential to change the medical practice and lead to the adoption of PP solutions in managing chronic pain.

These results are applicable to the general public, and can be applied in other settings if they prove useful.

The same results can also be used in another setting to produce more precise results.

2.Do the findings of this study have any bearing on clinical practice?

In the Bellingeri et al. (2015) study, the results should be used for guidance in clinical acre practices. The randomised control design used was compliant with research protocols, and met basic standards.

References1.Aveyard, H., 2014.

Reviewing the literature on health and social care: A practical guide.

McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

2.Begg C. Cho M. Eastwood S. Horton R. Moher D. Olkin I. Pitkin R. Rennie D. Schulz K.F. Simel D. Stroup D.F. 1996

The CONSORT Statement: Improving quality of reporting on randomized controlled trials. Jama, 276(8), pp.637-639.

3.Bellingeri A. Falciani F. Traspedini P. Moscatelli A. Russo A. Tino A. Tino G. Chiari P. Peghetti A.

One-blind RCT: Effect of wound cleansing solution on wound preparation and inflammation in chronic injuries.

J Wound Care. 25(3). P. 160.

4.Burgoon J.K. & Hale J.L., 1987.

Validation and measurement for the basic themes of relational communication.

Communications Monographs. 54(1). pp.19–41.5.Farrugia, P., Petrisor, B. A., Farrokhyar, F., & Bhandari, M. 2010.

Research questions, hypotheses and goals.

Canadian Journal of Surgery. 53(4): 278-281.6.Glennerster, Rachel; Kudzai Takavarash 201).

The practical guide to running randomized evaluations.

Princeton University Press.

ISBN 9780691159249.7.Hardicare , J 2014.

J 2014. 23 no. 11 pp 564-5678.McCloskey, L.W., Kelley, K.M.

Phillips D.R. Emc Corporation. 2014.

Method for guaranteeing the replication data from a mainframe on to a virtual tape. U.S. Patent 8,793,452.9.Reyes, C., Pottegard, A., Schwarz, P., Javaid, M.K., Van Staa, T.P., Cooper, C., Diez-Perez, A., Abrahamsen, B. and Prieto-Alhambra, D., 2016.

Alendronate Trial Participants vs. Real-Life Users

Calcified tissue international 99(3) pp.243-249.

Wilcoxon A. Remley Jr. T.P.

Gladding S.T.

Ethics, legal, as well as professional issues in the field of marriage and family therapy.

Pearson Higher Ed.