Theory Analysis
Notes
The ultimate goal of theory evaluation is to determine the potential of the theory to scientific knowledge.
Hardy
• Theory evaluation: o meaningful and logical adequacy o Operational and empirical adequacy o Testability o Generality o Contribution to understanding o Predictability o Pragmatic adequacy
Logical adequacy (diagramming) - identifying all theoretical terms (concepts, constructs, operational definitions, referents).
Theory is a set of interrelated concepts and statements
Emprical adequacy- single most important criterion for evaluating a theory applied in practice.
Margaret Ellis o Identified characteristics of significant theories
Scope
Complexity
Testability
Usefulness
Implicit values of the theorist
Information generation
Meaningful terminology
Choose two of the theory evaluation approaches that are discussed in chapter 5 of McEwen. Locate the original sources of these two theorists; some articles are in Course Resources for you. Compare and contrast the strategies that they advocate for theory evaluation. What commonalities do you see? How do the two approaches differ? Could you use a synthesized version of the two approaches? Share your insights with your group under Analytic approaches topic. All postings due by 10/12.
I chose to compare and contrast the theory evaluation approaches of Rosemary Ellis and Margaret E. Hardy. Ellis uses various characteristics such as scope, complexity, testability, usefulness, implicit values, information generation and meaningful terminology to identify the significance of nursing theory (Ellis, 1968). Hardy on the other hand, has a different set of criterion for evaluation theory: meaningful and logical adequacy, operations and empirical adequacy, testability, generality, contribution to understanding, predictability and pragmatic adequacy (Hardy, 1973).
I noticed more similarities than differences in the two theory evaluation approaches.
The ultimate goal of theory evaluation is to determine the potential of the theory to scientific knowledge.
Hardy
• Theory evaluation: o meaningful and logical adequacy o Operational and empirical adequacy o Testability o Generality o Contribution to understanding o Predictability o Pragmatic adequacy
Logical adequacy (diagramming) - identifying all theoretical terms (concepts, constructs, operational definitions, referents).
Theory is a set of interrelated concepts and statements
Emprical adequacy- single most important criterion for evaluating a theory applied in practice.
Margaret Ellis o Identified characteristics of significant theories
Scope
Complexity
Testability
Usefulness
Implicit values of the theorist
Information generation
Meaningful terminology
Choose two of the theory evaluation approaches that are discussed in chapter 5 of McEwen. Locate the original sources of these two theorists; some articles are in Course Resources for you. Compare and contrast the strategies that they advocate for theory evaluation. What commonalities do you see? How do the two approaches differ? Could you use a synthesized version of the two approaches? Share your insights with your group under Analytic approaches topic. All postings due by 10/12.
I chose to compare and contrast the theory evaluation approaches of Rosemary Ellis and Margaret E. Hardy. Ellis uses various characteristics such as scope, complexity, testability, usefulness, implicit values, information generation and meaningful terminology to identify the significance of nursing theory (Ellis, 1968). Hardy on the other hand, has a different set of criterion for evaluation theory: meaningful and logical adequacy, operations and empirical adequacy, testability, generality, contribution to understanding, predictability and pragmatic adequacy (Hardy, 1973).
I noticed more similarities than differences in the two theory evaluation approaches.
References: Ellis, R. (1968). Characteristics Of Significant Theories. Theory Development in Nursing, 17(3), 217-222. Hardy, M. (1973). Theories: Components, Development, Evaluation. Theoretical Foundations for Nursing, 23(2), 100-106.