Nursing Research: 63-377
Dr. Wally J. Bartfay
“Imagination is more
important than
knowledge.”
(Albert Einstein, 1879-1955)
Research Questions



Are specific statements about the query the
researcher wants to answer
E.g.1: “What is the effect of a 3 year
television community-based heart health
program on the CVD mortality rate in
Ontario?”
E.g.2: “What is the effect of passive ROM on
the prevention of DVT’s during the first 24
hours following stroke?”
Research Questions: Quantitative


They often identify key variables (e.g., BP,
cholesterol, knowledge), the proposed relationships
between (e.g., less, more, higher, lower, etc) them &
the target population (e.g., stroke survivors, children
with IDDM) {more solid}
E.g., What is the effect of a 10 week walking
program on subjects BP, cholesterol profiles and
serum ferritin levels in post-menopausal women
aged 50 to 60 years?
Research Questions: Qualitative



May evolve & change over course of study (fairly
broad at onset, narrows overtime) {more fluid B/C
researcher is often the instrument & subjectivity is
essential for understanding human experiences}
E.g., time 1: What is the lived experience of women
who have undergone a C-section?
E.g., time 2: What are the specific negative
connotations & images r/t to birth process identified
by women who have undergone a C-section?
Summary Flow Chart: Formulating A
Research Question
Observation,
Clinical practice &
Literature
Identify research topics of interest
& Research problems
Non-researchable
problems
(e.g., ethical concerns, lack of subjects)
Researchable
problems
Formulate Research
Questions
(Refinement)
Research Hypotheses







Specifies the variables to be manipulated or measured
Identifies the target population to be examined
They “predict” the outcomes
May be based on a theory (e.g., behavioral modification)
May be simple (one independent & dependent variable) or
complex (multiple variables/ outcomes)
May be directional (e.g., higher, lower) or non-directional
(variables related but no direction how)
May be associative versus causal
Research Hypothesis: A real example

At least 50% of nursing students enrolled in
63-377 will be able to recall 7+/-2 items on a
memory challenge test
Research Hypothesis: A real example




Mirror, ray, cat, periscope, system, nucleus
Sand, elephant, pen-knife, gigantic, camera
Jupiter, organic, ice-cream, cow, bladder
Photosynthesis, root, teeth, taxi, snake, x-ray
Research Hypothesis: A real example



At least 50% of nursing students enrolled in
63-377 will be able to recall 7+/-2 items on a
memory challenge test
Class results?
Accept or reject hypothesis
Purposes of Hypotheses



(1) To provide a bridge between theory &
reality, in this sense, unifying the 2 domains
(2) To be tools for advancement of
knowledge b/c they enable the researcher to
objectively enter new areas of discovery
(3) To provide direction for research
endeavors by identifying the anticipated
outcome
Assumptions r/t Hypotheses



Nature of the relationships, either causal or
associative, is implied
They are testable, which means variables
have to be observable & measurable
Sound hypotheses are consistent with
existing body of knowledge, theory &
research findings (white horse scenario)
Developing Research Hypotheses



Should be a statement about the relationship
between 2 or more variables that suggest an
answer to the research ?
Should convert the question posed by
research problem into a declarative
statement that predicts an expected outcome
Should flow from research problem, lit.
review & theoretical framework
Developing Research Hypotheses
Theoretical Frameworks
Hypotheses
Problem Statements
Literature Review
Interrelationships of problem statement, lit. review,
theoretical framework & hypotheses
Review exercise: Examples of
hypotheses formulated


(1) There will be a positive relationship
between recalled psychological distress &
the onset of G.I. symptoms in clients with
irritable bowel syndrome
(2) There will be a positive relationship
between recalled psychological distress and
exacerbation of G.I. symptoms in clients with
irritable bowel syndrome
Critiquing Criteria for Hypotheses







Does it r/t research problem?
Is it concisely stated in a declarative form?
Are independent & dependent variables clearly
identified?
Are variables measurable?
Is it testable?
Is theoretical rationale explicit?
Is it stated objectively, without value-laden words?
Review of Literature
Research
Education
Practice
Review of Literature
Theory
Proposed relationships between research, education,
practice & literature
Review of Literature: Major Goal

To develop a sound and strong knowledge
base to carry-out research and other
scholarly educational and clinical practice
activities
Critical elements in literature review:
Grant proposal development





When the problem/ concept was identified
When was it 1st investigated
How was it previously investigated (specific
designs employed, target populations)
By whom was it investigated (individual,
multi-site, WHO etc)
Gaps & inconsistencies identified (provides
directions for future research)
Review of Literature: Objectives





(1) Determines what is known & not known about a
problem, subject or concept
(2) Determines gaps, consistencies and
inconsistencies
(3) Helps to uncover unanswered ?’s
(4) Helps to identify conceptual frameworks used to
examine problems
(5) May uncover new practice interventions and/or
provides rationale for current and proposed
interventions, protocols & policies
Review of Literature: Objectives





(6) Helps generate useful research ?’s &
hypotheses of interest to nursing
(7) Helps determine appropriate research design,
methodology, & analysis based on earlier reports
(8) Determines need for replication of study or
refinement (e.g., other target populations)
(9) Synthesizes strengths & weaknesses of earlier
reports in a concise manner
(10) Provides rationale & clinical significance for new
research endeavors (research proposals)
Steps For Reviewing The Literature:





(1) Determine concept/ issue/ topic/ problem of
interest
(2) Identify key words, variables, terms
(3) Conduct print (esp. recent reviews) & computer
searches of abstracts (e.g., PUBMED, MEDLINE,
CINAHL, ERIC)
(4) Print-out key abstracts & organize sources for
retrieval (e.g., organize by journal name, year etc)
(5) Retrieve relevant articles (esp. current reviews as
a starting point)
Steps For Reviewing The Literature:





(6) Proof articles & weed-out all irrelevant articles
(7) Copy all relevant, classical & ground-breaking
articles (hint: who’s quoting who?)
(8) Review articles systematically (abstract,
background, research ?s, hypotheses, methods,
results, discussion)
(9) Summarize & systematically critique each source
(10) Synthesize critical summaries (e.g.,
chronologically, according to type etc)
Databases: Print & Internet based








CINAHL (1st published in 1956- note: historical research)
Index Medicus {IM} (oldest health related index, 1st published in
1879)
Psychological Abstracts (covers 1927 to present)
International Nursing Index {INI} (started in 1966)
Nursing Studies Index (developed by Virginia Henderson, from
1900 to 1959)
Hospital & Health Administration Index {HHAI} (1945)
Current Index to Journals in Education {CIJE} (1969, now
known as ERIC)
Many others, including MEDLINE (since 1966), PUBMED,
HealthStar, Psychological Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts,
Nursing Abstracts, Dissertation Abstracts, etc
Critiquing Criteria for Review of
Literature:





(1) What are gaps or inconsistencies?
(2) How does the review reflect critical thinking?
(3) Are all relevant concepts & variables included in
the review?
(4) Do summaries reflect essential components of
the study (e.g., ?s, study design, results,
instruments, validity, reliability issues, etc)? {See
page 107 of Polit & Tatano Beck, (2004)}
(5) Does critique include strengths, weaknesses,
limitations with design, conflicts, gaps, etc?
Critiquing Criteria for Review of
Literature:





(6) Are both conceptual & data-based lit. included?
(7) Are primary & current sources used mostly
(unless Hx. Research)?
(8) Is there a written synthesis of the reports?
(9) Does organization flow logically (e.g.,
chronologically, based on design etc)?
(10) Does lit. review fit purpose(s) of the current
proposed study (relevant or not)?