Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies
Is there a difference between “common practice” and “best practice”?
When you first went to work for your current organization, experienced colleagues may have shared with you details about processes and procedures. Perhaps you even attended an orientation session to brief you on these matters. As a “rookie,” you likely kept the nature of your questions to those with answers that would best help you perform your new role.
Over time and with experience, perhaps you recognized aspects of these processes and procedures that you wanted to question further. This is the realm of clinical inquiry.
Clinical inquiry is the practice of asking questions about clinical practice. To continuously improve patient care, all nurses should consistently use clinical inquiry to question why they are doing something the way they are doing it. Do they know why it is done this way, or is it just because we have always done it this way? Is it a common practice or a best practice?
In this Assignment, you will identify clinical areas of interest and inquiry and practice searching for research in support of maintaining or changing these practices. You will also analyze this research to compare research methodologies employed.
To Prepare:
- Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry. Keep in mind that the clinical issue you identify for your research will stay the same for the entire course.
- Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least four different databases in the Walden Library to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest. You should not be using systematic reviews for this assignment, select original research articles.
- Review the results of your peer-reviewed research and reflect on the process of using an unfiltered database to search for peer-reviewed research.
- Reflect on the types of research methodologies contained in the four relevant peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies
After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following:
- The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.
- A brief (1-paragraph) statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest.
- A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.
- A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.
- A brief (1- to 2-paragraph) description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
By Day 7 of Week 3
Submit your Evidence-Based Project.
Submission and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
- Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK3Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
- Click the Week 3 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
- Click the Week 3 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
- Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK3Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
- If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
- Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
- Due to the nature of this assignment, your instructor may require more than 5 days to provide you with quality feedback.
learning Objectives
Students will:
- Differentiate between quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research methodologies
- Analyze the relationship between peer-reviewed articles and clinical issues
- Analyze research ethics related to clinical issues and peer-reviewed research
- Analyze the aims of research studies presented in peer-reviewed articles
- Analyze research methodologies described in peer-reviewed articles
- Analyze strengths, reliability, and validity of research methodologies in peer-reviewed research
Learning Resources
Required Readings
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.
- Chapter 2, “Asking Compelling Clinical Questions” (pp. 33–54)
- Chapter 21, “Generating Evidence Through Quantitative and Qualitative Research” (pp. 607–653)
Document: Matrix Worksheet Template (Word Document)
Required Media
Name: NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |||
| Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies
After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following:
<br
*The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.
<br
*A brief statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest.
<br
*A brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.
<br
*A brief description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.</br </br </br </br |
81 (81%) – 90 (90%)
The response accurately and clearly provides a full citation of each article in APA format. The responses accurately and thoroughly explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including a detailed explanation of the ethics of research. The responses accurately and clearly describe the aims of the research. The responses accurately and clearly describe the research methodology used, and clearly identify the type of methodology used with specific and relevant examples. The responses accurately and clearly describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including a detailed explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected. The responses provide a complete, detailed, and specific synthesis of two outside resources related to the selection of articles and two or three course-specific resources. |
72 (72%) – 80 (80%)
The response accurately provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. The responses accurately explain the selection of these peer-reviewed articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including an accurate explanation of ethics. The responses accurately describe the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article. The responses accurately describe the research methodology used and type of methodology used with some examples. The responses accurately describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including an explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles selected. The responses provide an accurate synthesis of at least one outside resource related to the selection of the peer-reviewed articles. The response integrates at least one outside resource and two or three course-specific resources. |
63 (63%) – 71 (71%)
The response inaccurately or vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format. The responses inaccurately or vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue of interest, including the explanation of the ethics. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the aims of the research of each article. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the research methodology used and the type of methodology used, with only some examples. The responses inaccurately or vaguely describe the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the articles selected. The responses provided vaguely or inaccurately synthesize outside resources related to the selection of the articles. The response minimally integrates resources that may support the responses provided. |
0 (0%) – 62 (62%)
The response inaccurately and vaguely provides a citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format or is missing. The responses inaccurately & vaguely explain the selection of these articles and/or how they relate to a clinical issue, including the explanation of ethics of research, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the aims of the research, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the research methodology used, the type of methodology used with no examples present, or they are missing. The responses inaccurately and vaguely describe the strengths of each of the methodologies used, including the explanation of the reliability and validity of the methodology, or they are missing. The responses provide a vague and inaccurate synthesis of outside resources related to the selection of the articles and fail to integrate any resources to support the responses provided, or is missing. |
||
| Written Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided, which delineates all required criteria. | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment are stated but are brief and not descriptive. |
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60–79% of the time. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity less than 60% of the time. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion is provided. |
||
| Written Expression and Formatting—English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided, which delineates all required criteria. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (one or two) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (three or four) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (five or more) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. |
||
| Total Points: 100 | ||||||
Name: NURS_6052_Module02_Week03_Assignment_Rubric
Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies
Is there a difference between “common practice” and “best practice”?
When you first went to work for your current organization, experienced colleagues may have shared with you details about processes and procedures. Perhaps you even attended an orientation session to brief you on these matters. As a “rookie,” you likely kept the nature of your questions to those with answers that would best help you perform your new role.
Over time and with experience, perhaps you recognized aspects of these processes and procedures that you wanted to question further. This is the realm of clinical inquiry.
Clinical inquiry is the practice of asking questions about clinical practice. To continuously improve patient care, all nurses should consistently use clinical inquiry to question why they are doing something the way they are doing it. Do they know why it is done this way, or is it just because we have always done it this way? Is it a common practice or a best practice?
In this Assignment, you will identify clinical areas of interest and inquiry and practice searching for research in support of maintaining or changing these practices. You will also analyze this research to compare research methodologies employed.
To Prepare:
- Review the Resources and identify a clinical issue of interest that can form the basis of a clinical inquiry. Keep in mind that the clinical issue you identify for your research will stay the same for the entire course.
- Based on the clinical issue of interest and using keywords related to the clinical issue of interest, search at least four different databases in the Walden Library to identify at least four relevant peer-reviewed articles related to your clinical issue of interest. You should not be using systematic reviews for this assignment, select original research articles.
- Review the results of your peer-reviewed research and reflect on the process of using an unfiltered database to search for peer-reviewed research.
- Reflect on the types of research methodologies contained in the four relevant peer-reviewed articles you selected.
Part 1: Identifying Research Methodologies
After reading each of the four peer-reviewed articles you selected, use the Matrix Worksheet template to analyze the methodologies applied in each of the four peer-reviewed articles. Your analysis should include the following:
- The full citation of each peer-reviewed article in APA format.
- A brief (1-paragraph) statement explaining why you chose this peer-reviewed article and/or how it relates to your clinical issue of interest, including a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest.
- A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article.
- A brief (1-2 paragraph) description of the research methodology used. Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific.
- A brief (1- to 2-paragraph) description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected.
By Day 7 of Week 3
Submit your Evidence-Based Project.
Submission and Grading Information
To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:
- Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK3Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” as the name.
- Click the Week 3 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
- Click the Week 3 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area.
- Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK3Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open.
- If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
- Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
- Due to the nature of this assignment, your instructor may require more than 5 days to provide you with quality feedback.
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 3 Assignment Rubric
Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
To check your Assignment Draft for Authenticity
Submit your Week 3 Assignment Draft and review the originality report
Submit Your Assignment by Day 7 of Week 3
To submit your Assignment:
Week 3 Assignment
Module 2: An Introduction to Clinical Inquiry and Research Methodologies (Weeks 2-3)
Laureate Education (Producer). (2018). Research Methodologies [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Accessible player
| Due By | Assignment |
| Week 2, Days 1-4 | Read the Learning Resources. Begin to check your knowledge with the Quiz. |
| Week 2, Days 5-6 | Continue to check your knowledge with the Quiz. |
| Week 2, Day 7 | Final day to complete Quiz. Begin to compose your Assignment. |
| Week 3, Days 1-6 | Continue to compose your Assignment. |
| Week 3, Day 7 | Deadline to submit your Assignment. |
Learning Objectives
Students will:
- Differentiate between quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research methodologies
- Analyze the relationship between peer-reviewed articles and clinical issues
- Analyze research ethics related to clinical issues and peer-reviewed research
- Analyze the aims of research studies presented in peer-reviewed articles
- Analyze research methodologies described in peer-reviewed articles
- Analyze strengths, reliability, and validity of research methodologies in peer-reviewed research
Learning Resources
Required Readings
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.
- Chapter 2, “Asking Compelling Clinical Questions” (pp. 33–54)
- Chapter 21, “Generating Evidence Through Quantitative and Qualitative Research” (pp. 607–653)
Document: Matrix Worksheet Template (Word Document)
Required Media
Place your order!
Solution
An Introduction to Clinical Inquiry and Research Methodologies
Clinical issues have profound impacts on health care providers and patients, given that they pose a significant risk to the quality of care, patient safety, and nursing staff’s wellbeing. Workplace incivility, characterized by discourteous and disrespectful actions, is typical in the nursing practice. It is among the issues that adversely affect nurses’ confidence and interprofessional collaboration. Anxiety is also high in workplaces where nursing incivility is not effectively controlled, fueling burnout and turnover (Shi et al., 2018). Effective control of nursing incivility is vital to optimizing care quality and patient safety. Since interventions should be evidence-based, it is crucial to search for evidence from credible research as summarized in the matrix worksheet.
| Full citation of selected article | Article #1 | Article #2 | Article #3 | Article #4 |
| Kile, D., Eaton, M., deValpine, M., & Gilbert, R. (2019). The effectiveness of education and cognitive rehearsal in managing nurse‐to‐nurse incivility: A pilot study. Journal of Nursing Management, 27(3), 543-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12709
|
Abdollahzadeh, F., Asghari, E., Ebrahimi, H., Rahmani, A., & Vahidi, M. (2017). How to prevent workplace incivility?: Nurses’ perspective. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, 22(2), 157-163. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-9066.205966 | Armstrong, N. (2018). Management of nursing workplace incivility in the health care settings: A systematic review. Workplace Health & Safety, 66(8), 403-410. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2165079918771106 | Shi, Y., Guo, H., Zhang, S., Xie, F., Wang, J., Sun, Z., … & Fan, L. (2018). Impact of workplace incivility against new nurses on job burn-out: A cross-sectional study in China. BMJ Open, 8(4), e020461. doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2017-020461 | |
| Why you chose this article and/or how it relates to the clinical issue of interest (include a brief explanation of the ethics of research related to your clinical issue of interest) | It is a comprehensive article exploring the importance of enhanced awareness through educational programs in reducing nurse-to-nurse incivility. The article explains how cognitive rehearsal techniques can help nurses to cope with incivility. Al-Ghabeesh and Qattom (2018) also supported the role of cognitive rehearsal in helping nurses to cope with workplace problems since it prepares them mentally to cope with stressing situations. Regarding ethics, participation was voluntary and participants’ information treated anonymously.
|
The article depicts workplace incivility as a disturbing phenomenon, detrimental to clinicians’ health and care delivered. Due to incivility’s psychological and somatic effects, the article investigates how it can be managed from a nurse’s perspective. Concerning research ethics, informed consent was observed to ensure that nurses participated willingly. Nurses were also allowed to withdraw willingly without getting penalized in any way. | The article was chosen since it shows the severity of workplace incivility among nurses and proposes evidence-based interventions. According to Armstrong (2018), incivility has a destructive effect as a cause of emotional upset among nurses, to the extent of risking patient care. This observation coincides with Alshehry et al. (2021) finding that workplace incivility increases the occurrence of unsafe medication administration practices. On ethics, Armstrong (2018) avoided search biases by summarizing data from different databases. | The article is an in-depth exploration of the implications of workplace incivility in health practice. It describes how workplace incivility is correlated with anxiety and job burn-out among nurses, necessitating evidence-based interventions. Regarding ethics of research, consent and anonymity are critical. Participants consented to participate in the survey and information provided was treated anonymously. |
| Brief description of the aims of the research of each peer-reviewed article | The aim of the research was to help nurses to recognize incivility and reduce its impacts by confronting it through cognitive rehearsal techniques. The ability to confront incivility would improve job satisfaction. | Abdollahzadeh et al. (2017) suggested that many articles have investigated the effects of workplace incivility without proposing practical interventions. In response, the article’s primary aim is to determine how workplace incivility can be prevented in health care settings from a nurses’ perspective. | Guided by the premise that workplace incivility should be effectively controlled, the study critiques and summarized evidence that can help nursing staff to manage workplace incivility. It focused on the practical interventions that can be applied universally as nurses overcome this chronic problem. | The article’s primary aim was to investigate the impacts of workplace incivility on new nursing staff. It further examined the role that resilience plays in moderating incivility-job burn-out connection. |
| Brief description of the research methodology used Be sure to identify if the methodology used was qualitative, quantitative, or a mixed-methods approach. Be specific. | Kile et al. (2019) conducted a mixed method, pilot study. Data before and after nurses received cognitive rehearsal training were obtained via surveys for comparative analysis.
|
Data was collected via interviews. Researchers used the qualitative descriptive study design. Thus, the article is qualitative research. | The study is a systematic review of current and relevant evidence on workplace incivility. Ten studies were reviewed, implying that it is a quantitative study. | The study was a cross-sectional online survey. Participants (903 registered nurses) completed online questionnaires in May of 2016 in China. Hence, it was a quantitative research. |
| A brief description of the strengths of each of the research methodologies used, including reliability and validity of how the methodology was applied in each of the peer-reviewed articles you selected. | The key strength of a mixed method approach to research is enhancing the understanding of quantitative and qualitative results’ contradictions. Regarding validity and reliability, researchers use various methods to gather information in mixed methods studies (Schoonenboom & Johnson, 2017). These methods supplement each other making the data more valid and reliable. | Generally, qualitative research allows issues to be examined in-depth. Interviews also allow researchers to ask specific questions that can be redirected as situations oblige (Thorsteinson, 2018). Regarding reliability and validity, interviews allowed one-on-one correspondence and the interview questions were designed in a way that all the participants answered the same questions despite difference locations. | A key strength of systematic reviews is getting a quick answer about a particular clinical issue from previous studies. In this case, information is readily available. Systematic reviews are highly reliable and valid too. Their conclusion about a clinical issue is derived from multiple studies that the researcher(s) assess for relevance and quality. | As a common data collection method, questionnaires have various strengths. It is possible to test many people quickly. Data (quantitative) can be generated and analyzed easily. On reliability, questionnaires facilitate the collection of large volume of data (Oden, 2019). It was the same case in the article. The results were also consistent by showing a positive correlation between workplace incivility, anxiety, and burnout. |
| General Notes/Comments | The article expands the PICOT by explaining how an educational intervention (cognitive rehearsal) can advance workplace civility. It illustrates how a positive workplace can be promoted to ensure that patients receive safe and efficient care.
|
The article is a reliable resource that expands knowledge on workplace incivility prevention from a nurses’ perspective. It explains how improving nurses’ skills and communication ability and supporting nurses can be integral in reducing workplace incivility in health care organizations. | The article is highly informative on the implications of workplace incivility in health care settings. It further proposes interventions necessary to manage incivility including educational training on incivility to enhance awareness and communication skills. Overall, it is a useful resource to develop the PICOT. | As nurses continue solving clinical issues, application of evidence-based research is vital. The article expands research on the effects of workplace incivility, which shows the need for policy interventions and other practical solutions. |
Conclusion
The research articles in the worksheet evaluate workplace incivility among nurses from multiple dimensions. Causes of nursing incivility have been studied besides impacts of the clinical problem and possible prevention measures. Interventions such as resilience training and cognitive rehearsal techniques have been proposed. The articles will be further critiqued to get the best evidence to be used as the basis for change implementation in nursing practice to reduce incivility.
References
Abdollahzadeh, F., Asghari, E., Ebrahimi, H., Rahmani, A., & Vahidi, M. (2017). How to prevent workplace incivility?: Nurses’ perspective. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research, 22(2), 157-163. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-9066.205966
Al-Ghabeesh, S. H., & Qattom, H. (2019). Workplace bullying and its preventive measures and productivity among emergency department nurses. Israel Journal of Health Policy research, 8(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4268-x
Alshehry, A. S., Alquwez, N., Almazan, J., Namis, I. M., & Cruz, J. P. (2019). Influence of workplace incivility on the quality of nursing care. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 28(23-24), 4582-4594. DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15051
Armstrong, N. (2018). Management of nursing workplace incivility in the health care settings: A systematic review. Workplace Health & Safety, 66(8), 403-410. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2165079918771106
Kile, D., Eaton, M., deValpine, M., & Gilbert, R. (2019). The effectiveness of education and cognitive rehearsal in managing nurse‐to‐nurse incivility: A pilot study. Journal of Nursing Management, 27(3), 543-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12709
Oden, C. (2019). Validity and reliability of questionnaires: how to check. ProjectTopics. https://www.projecttopics.org/validity-and-reliability-of-questionnaires-how-to-check.html
Shi, Y., Guo, H., Zhang, S., Xie, F., Wang, J., Sun, Z., … & Fan, L. (2018). Impact of workplace incivility against new nurses on job burn-out: A cross-sectional study in China. BMJ Open, 8(4), e020461. doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2017-020461
Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed methods research design. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69(2), 107-131. doi: 10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1
Thorsteinson, T. J. (2018). A meta‐analysis of interview length on reliability and validity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12186