3 Expert Answers on Methods of Evaluating Evidence Discussion

Methods of Evaluating Evidence

The two main approaches to evaluating evidence are qualitative and quantitative techniques. Qualitative and quantitative approaches are the main methods of evaluating evidence in nursing research (LoBiondo-Wood et al., 2021). A qualitative approach is concerned with the meanings and processes of a phenomenon under evaluation. For this approach, employed criteria are not measurable but require interpretation and emphatic understanding. Besides, qualitative can be evaluated in an interpretive, diagnostic, or diagnostic manner. Therefore, the results from a qualitative evaluation and the associated variable are contextual. The different qualitative approaches include ethnography, case study, narratives, phenomenology, or grounded theories.

On the other hand, a quantitative approach is concerned with analyzing research data while comparing relevant metrics or data sets to support the phenomenon under evaluation (LoBiondo-Wood et al., 2021). For a quantitative approach, research criteria are measurable, i.e., formal instruments and prediction techniques are used. Moreover, the results obtained from a quantitative approach and the associated variables are objective. The different quantitative approaches to choose from include randomized controlled trials, surveys, or longitudinal studies.

Furthermore, a qualitative approach applies conceptual frameworks, including processes assessments, experiences, meanings, and subjective perceptions of the phenomenon under evaluation (LoBiondo-Wood et al., 2021). Equally, a qualitative approach employs subjective data collection methods, including interviews, surveys, journaling, observation and recording of behaviors, and drawings. For instance, a nursing researcher can employ interviews to evaluate a patient’s perception of a particular treatment regimen or care delivery in a hospital setting. Examples of metrics employed in qualitative evidence evaluation include means, averages, and standard deviations.

Conversely, a quantitative approach involves hypotheses and theories formulation and evaluation using data and facts through statistical comparisons. The quantitative approaches include formal prediction tools that ensure the objectivity of variables, data, and results (LoBiondo-Wood et al., 2021). Evaluation involves deductive reasoning, numerical quantification, and generalization of results. The conceptual frameworks applied in the quantitative approach include assessing variables such as height, weight, age, incidences. For instance, a nursing researcher would note the number of falls among Alzheimer’s patients in a hospital and determine the incidence rates. methods to evaluate evidence in research

References

LoBiondo-Wood, G., Faan, P. R., Haber, J., & Faan, P. R. (2021). Nursing Research E-Book: Methods and Critical Appraisal for Evidence-Based Practice. Elsevier Health Sciences

Expert Answers to the Methods of Evaluating Evidence Discussion in NRS 493

Methods of evaluating evidence

There are various methods of evaluating evidence-based practice, but the main ones are quantitative and qualitative techniques. Researchers can use quantitative techniques to evaluate the data applied and compare the measures used in the particular research study. Researchers and students can use metrics such as standard deviation, mean and averages, and other statistical measures to evaluate evidence.

Quantitative techniques are used to assess the applicability and validity of the chosen variables and ensure the objectivity of the findings of the study under review (Liddle et al., 2011). Research variables and results must be quantifiable and make sense to other researchers. The data used must be relevant and adequate for inference. (methods for evaluating evidence ncbi)

Qualitative techniques include assessing processes, meanings, experiences, and perceptions presented in the particular study that can be used to evaluate evidence (Liddle et al., 2011). The qualitative approach helps interpret and use emphatic comprehensions to analyze evidence and determine whether the data and variables used in the research studies are applicable to a particular context.

References

Liddle J, Williamson, M,  & Irwig, L.(2011). Method for evaluating research and guideline evidence. Sydney: NSW Health Department.

Expert Answers to the Methods of Evaluating Evidence Discussion in NRS 493

Methods to Evaluate Evidence-based practice

There are different methods of evaluating evidence in evidence-based practice nursing. In this paper, I will compare systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses. Both systematic reviews and meta-analyses are methods of evidence generation that involve synthesizing primary evidence from more than two studies (Oh, 2016; Mikolajewicz & Komarova, 2019). These methods provide a high level of evidence to inform clinical decision-making and policy in clinical practice.

Systematic reviews summarize the crucial evidence on a particular clinical question. Systematic reviews adopt a transparent, formal, systematic, and a priori structured approach in reviewing information from relevant studies (Oh, 2016). Thus, systematic review methodology requires critical appraisal and data extraction in a reputable and reliable way. Therefore, systematic reviews collect and summarize available empirical evidence from relevant studies on a given question (Oh, 2016). The results are then examined for the validity and credibility of opinions and text. Therefore, SR reviews contribute to the analysis of available evidence, making it easily accessible for use in clinical practice decision-making.

Conversely, meta-analyses refer to a statistical analysis of data from a combination of studies focusing on a similar phenomenon to estimate the study question (Mikolajewicz & Komarova, 2019). Thus, meta-analysis provides a systematic assessment of results from previous studies to derive a conclusion. Essentially, meta-analysis allows quantitative appraisal and synthesis of results across studies to determine their statistical implication and relevance. However, meta-analyses are considered challenging and necessitate vast statistical knowledge and monotonous screening. Mostly, meta-analyses are conducted in the context of SR. Meta-analyses are completely objective; thus, they supersede typical critique and integration by conducting secondary statistical analysis of presented research results (Mikolajewicz & Komarova, 2019). Therefore, when used in nursing, meta-analyses provide precise estimates of clinical interventions as established in the existing literature.

References

Mikolajewicz, N., & Komarova, S. V. (2019). Meta-analytic methodology for basic research: a practical guide. Frontiers in physiology, 10, 203. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00203

Oh, E. G. (2016). Synthesizing quantitative evidence for evidence-based nursing: a systematic review. Asian Nursing Research, 10(2), 89-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2016.05.001