Critique of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies
Critique of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies
NU310: Kaplan University
Introduction The following paper is a critique of the data collection and data analysis methods used in a quantitative study that examines the effects of crossed legs on blood pressure measurement, and a qualitative study that looks at the experiences of patients during awake craniotomies. The data collection and analysis are the heart and soul of a study and contribute to its reliability. A study that doesn’t have relevant data and conclusions isn’t significant in any way. Polit and Beck (2012) state, that when making conclusions about the studies evidence “it is important to consider whether researchers have taken appropriate steps to collect data that accurately reflect reality” (p. 346). This means that the proper tools for data collection were utilized while using proper methods for the questions to be answered. After data collection, analysis takes place using statistical designs to evaluate hypotheses and simplify data. I will critique these areas in the quantitative and qualitative studies and evaluate areas of strength and weakness.
Quantitative Study
Data Collection In the quantitative study entitled “The Effects of Crossed Leg on Blood Pressure Measurement” by Foster-Fitzpatrick, Ortiz, Sibilano, Marcantonio and Braun (1999), there is an important research question being analyzed. The researchers collected blood pressure measurements in a controlled, relaxed environment with exact procedure and surroundings used for all 100 male subjects. Two clinic nurses monitored and recorded the data following strict protocols and using an electronic vital sign measurement system that was calibrated and verified for accuracy by a biomedical technician (Foster-Fitzpatrick et al., 1999). I think this is a good process for obtaining blood pressure measurements that are accurate and reliable. The staff were also adequately trained and a
NU310: Kaplan University
Introduction The following paper is a critique of the data collection and data analysis methods used in a quantitative study that examines the effects of crossed legs on blood pressure measurement, and a qualitative study that looks at the experiences of patients during awake craniotomies. The data collection and analysis are the heart and soul of a study and contribute to its reliability. A study that doesn’t have relevant data and conclusions isn’t significant in any way. Polit and Beck (2012) state, that when making conclusions about the studies evidence “it is important to consider whether researchers have taken appropriate steps to collect data that accurately reflect reality” (p. 346). This means that the proper tools for data collection were utilized while using proper methods for the questions to be answered. After data collection, analysis takes place using statistical designs to evaluate hypotheses and simplify data. I will critique these areas in the quantitative and qualitative studies and evaluate areas of strength and weakness.
Quantitative Study
Data Collection In the quantitative study entitled “The Effects of Crossed Leg on Blood Pressure Measurement” by Foster-Fitzpatrick, Ortiz, Sibilano, Marcantonio and Braun (1999), there is an important research question being analyzed. The researchers collected blood pressure measurements in a controlled, relaxed environment with exact procedure and surroundings used for all 100 male subjects. Two clinic nurses monitored and recorded the data following strict protocols and using an electronic vital sign measurement system that was calibrated and verified for accuracy by a biomedical technician (Foster-Fitzpatrick et al., 1999). I think this is a good process for obtaining blood pressure measurements that are accurate and reliable. The staff were also adequately trained and a