2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/211731
Type:
Research Study
Title:
METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF CLINICAL NURSING AND NURSING EDUCATION RESEARCH
Abstract:
Aim: The primary aim of this project was to compare the methodological quality of clinical nursing and nursing education research articles. Background: The scientific rigor of nursing research, especially nursing education research, is still developing. Through the assessment of published nursing research across different areas of inquiry, we can promote the development of more rigorous nursing education research in the future. Methods: One hundred research articles from the top five clinical nursing journals, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Oncology Nursing Forum, Cancer Nursing, Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care, and World Views on Evidence-based Nursing published in 2007 were chosen for analysis. Additionally, 133 nursing education research articles published in 2006-2007 were selected from a variety of journals for analysis. The analysis consisted of comparing six domains of methodological quality and factors related to methodological quality or scientific merit. Results: Clinical articles had significantly higher quality scores than education articles in four domains: number of institutions involved, type of data, complexity of analysis, and outcome studied. In addition, there were also the following findings: (a) no significant difference in quality scores was found for study design and response rate between the two article types; (b) the geographic setting of the clinical and education studies was similar; (c) the majority of clinical and education studies were undertaken outside the U.S.; (d) funding was reported more often in clinical articles than in education articles; (e) in comparison with education articles, clinical articles had significantly greater mean citation counts and had more citations in the introduction and conclusion sections; and (f) new and consistent findings were more likely to be identified in clinical articles than nursing education articles. Implications: These findings indicate that more rigorous nursing education research can be developed through increasing the number of institutions involved, collecting more objective data, performing inferential statistical analyses, and studying more behavioral and health-related outcomes. By improving the methodological quality of nursing education research, more nursing education research may be funded and have higher impact.
Keywords:
Clinical Nursing Research; Nursing Education Research
Repository Posting Date:
20-Feb-2012
Date of Publication:
20-Feb-2012
Other Identifiers:
5033
Sponsors:
Western Institute of Nursing

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typeResearch Studyen_GB
dc.titleMETHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF CLINICAL NURSING AND NURSING EDUCATION RESEARCHen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/211731-
dc.description.abstractAim: The primary aim of this project was to compare the methodological quality of clinical nursing and nursing education research articles. Background: The scientific rigor of nursing research, especially nursing education research, is still developing. Through the assessment of published nursing research across different areas of inquiry, we can promote the development of more rigorous nursing education research in the future. Methods: One hundred research articles from the top five clinical nursing journals, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Oncology Nursing Forum, Cancer Nursing, Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care, and World Views on Evidence-based Nursing published in 2007 were chosen for analysis. Additionally, 133 nursing education research articles published in 2006-2007 were selected from a variety of journals for analysis. The analysis consisted of comparing six domains of methodological quality and factors related to methodological quality or scientific merit. Results: Clinical articles had significantly higher quality scores than education articles in four domains: number of institutions involved, type of data, complexity of analysis, and outcome studied. In addition, there were also the following findings: (a) no significant difference in quality scores was found for study design and response rate between the two article types; (b) the geographic setting of the clinical and education studies was similar; (c) the majority of clinical and education studies were undertaken outside the U.S.; (d) funding was reported more often in clinical articles than in education articles; (e) in comparison with education articles, clinical articles had significantly greater mean citation counts and had more citations in the introduction and conclusion sections; and (f) new and consistent findings were more likely to be identified in clinical articles than nursing education articles. Implications: These findings indicate that more rigorous nursing education research can be developed through increasing the number of institutions involved, collecting more objective data, performing inferential statistical analyses, and studying more behavioral and health-related outcomes. By improving the methodological quality of nursing education research, more nursing education research may be funded and have higher impact.en_GB
dc.subjectClinical Nursing Researchen_GB
dc.subjectNursing Education Researchen_GB
dc.date.available2012-02-20T12:11:00Z-
dc.date.issued2012-02-20T12:11:00Z-
dc.date.accessioned2012-02-20T12:11:00Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipWestern Institute of Nursingen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.