Vallerand, A., Riley-Doucet, C. Hasenau, S Article Review

Pages: 3 (1362 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 0  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Healthcare

Vallerand, a., Riley-Doucet, C. Hasenau, S. And Templin, T. (2004). Improving cancer pain management by homecare nurses. Oncology Nursing Forum. 31(4):809-816.

Fairly critiquing an investigator's research endeavor is a task that must be taken seriously. Although it is quite easy to have an opinion of another's research it is something quite different to be able to evaluate the research activity in terms of topic specificity and soundness, intent or purpose, data analysis, and informational importance. When embarking upon a critical analysis of another's work the reviewer must, at all times, adhere to the basic principle of prudent evaluation; namely, evaluating the structure of the research upon which scientific conclusion are drawn. More specifically, the function of a research report (article) is to inform readers about the problem being investigated, the methods used to solve the problem, the results of the investigation, and the conclusions being inferred from the results. The printed manuscript is to inform the reader, as expeditiously as possible, what was done, the outcome of the doing, and the investigator's conclusion. In line with the research protocol tenets the article authored by Vallerand, Riley-Doucet, Hasenau, and Templin (2004) will be constructively evaluated on the basis of its substantive worth and design quality.Download full Download Microsoft Word File
paper NOW!

TOPIC: Article Review on Vallerand, A., Riley-Doucet, C. Hasenau, S. And Assignment

Design Quality. Whether research investigations are designed on the basis of an experimental, descriptive, historical, or case study and/or clinical trial formatted there must exist a clearly defined research question that informs the reader as to the specific intent of the research undertaken. When the research design is experimental (treatment) or descriptive there must follow a well-formulated testable null hypothesis. Should these two research tenets not be in place then the research is said to be ad hoc and of little useful propose with respect to the validity and reliability of professional content knowledge. The present article reviewed and authored by Vallerand and colleagues, (2004) can be best described as ad hoc research as it did not follow the best-fit practice for effective research. At any time, when a research investigator advises the reading audience that a study was conducted to determine the effects of an applied program (i.e., two-tier education program - independent variable), he or she must also inform the reader as to that which is identified as the measured outcome (i.e., dependent variable). For the present investigation all the authors managed to accomplish was to lump both independent and dependent variables into a single category under the title "research variables" (i.e., two-tiered education program and nursing knowledge and attitude toward pain management, pain perception, and barriers to pain management). All that was reported by the authors were the results of the two-tiered program on knowledge about pain management, barriers to pain management, and perception of pain control. The more prudent research tactic to have taken would have been to determine the effects of the two-tier program with respect to pain knowledge, management, and perception on some identified dependent variable such as lowered errors in medication delivery, attitude change toward palliative care, nursing stress levels, or even nursing retention. Any one of these factors might well have been affected by the treatment variable (i.e., educational program) delivered to the sample nursing research audience. In essence what the authors structured was simply a content knowledge-based study minus all forms of application.

In addition to omitting a research question and testable null hypothesis the authors failed in other research areas as well, namely, sampling, instrumentation or measurement, and statistical tool selection. The errors here are of such magnitude that they can only be presented on a very general basis. Notwithstanding the fact that the authors failed to properly identify the type or research, research question, and testable null hypothesis their selection of research design (statistical tool and sample) is completely without merit. When selecting a design the author is obligated to inform the reader as to the rational. The authors for this particular study identified their design as a 'cluster randomized, experimental design." This is simply a 'fruit salad' when speaking about prudent research. Cluster randomized designs are basically regarded as lacking statistical precision and, at best,… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Download full paper (3 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Johnson's Impeachment Andrew Essay

Willa Cather's O Pioneers and the Frontier Female Hero Term Paper

Nuclear WMD a Real Threat A-Level Coursework

Orderly-Restrictive Learning Environments Fairmont Academy Term Paper

Pop Culture Cultural Elements of a Society Term Paper

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Vallerand, A., Riley-Doucet, C. Hasenau, S" Article Review in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Vallerand, A., Riley-Doucet, C. Hasenau, S.  (2005, May 11).  Retrieved September 28, 2021, from

MLA Format

"Vallerand, A., Riley-Doucet, C. Hasenau, S."  11 May 2005.  Web.  28 September 2021. <>.

Chicago Style

"Vallerand, A., Riley-Doucet, C. Hasenau, S."  May 11, 2005.  Accessed September 28, 2021.