Critique of Systematic Research Review (SRR)
How the Research Problem Addressed in the SRR is Relevant to Practice
SRR critique is aimed to provide a clear understanding a nursing article, through an in-depth analysis of the research findings incorporated. For this study, the article under critique is, ‘Systematic Review of Studies of Nursing Education Outcomes: An Evolving Review’ by Nancy Spector. Essentially, the knowledge of nursing education outcomes will help to establish strategies to improve quality provision in the medical profession. In a way, the SSR is likely to identify weaknesses in nursing education. As a practice of advanced medicine, the review is set to find research evidence to improve clinical know-how and patients’ values. Spector (2006) is convinced that the articles she uses in her review are the best available in nursing education. The SRR will provide insights to advance instructional methods and education outcomes in nursing.
Research Vigor in the SRR
Spector’s review is comprehensive and detailed. Precisely, she utilizes 25 peer-reviewed articles on nursing. Also, most of the articles used are labeled as level II, which implies that their pieces of evidence are credible enough to guarantee validity and reliability. Besides, Spector uses the same analytic mechanisms to analyze each article; this helps to provide impartial findings, free from bias. The criteria used to select the studies involved a style of educational outcomes, sample description, design identification, reporting of results, the objective of the survey, and English language. Also, the study is concerned with articles that have substantial evidence for a given strategy. In this respect, the study reviews hierarchies of studies or levels of evidence that support or oppose instructional methods and learning settings for nursing. Thus, in her choices, Spector considered various ways of classifying research studies. First, there is the use of I to V rating scale, whereby level I constitutes large randomized control trials (RCTs). Conversely, level II comprises of studies whose RCTs are at most 50 subjects. On the other hand, level III incorporates smaller factions or cohorts while leveling IV centers on evidence based on cohort studies, low-level case-control, and case reports. Meanwhile, level V entails consensus from experts concerning experience, biological principles, or physiology (Spector, 2006). The other criterion for selecting articles for the review considers levels A through D; while level A is assigned to studies with the strongest evidence, level D is a label for studies with the weakest evidence.
Level of Evidence Identified by the Types of Studies in the SRR
The levels of evidence incorporated in the study are high; this improves their credibility. Evidently, the articles utilized are peer-reviewed. Also, they are critically analyzed based on parameters such as samples, comparison studied, study procedures, key results, strengths, and weaknesses, as well as implications for boards. Moreover, the SRR majorly deals with studies that adopt quantitative research methods. The preference of the research method centers on its preciseness; quantitative research is based on numbers. Hence its results can easily be generalized to a given population.
Other articles in the SRR use longitudinal qualitative research methodology. Ideally, longitudinal studies are vital in data collection from long periods, which imply that they help to determine patterns. As such, this ability fosters the learning of cause-effect connections in studies’ aspects such as the relationship between nursing instructional methods and education outcomes. It is worth noting that having data collected over a long time provides more concise and better results; hence, researchers that apply longitudinal qualitative methods guarantee high validity levels.
Clarity
Based on the clarity of the SSR article, the author has presented a tabulated analysis of the materials she has used to build her review. The sections of the table show simplified forms of reviewed articles in compliance with common parameters such as strengths and weaknesses, primary result, implications to nursing board, and samples. Below the elements (parameters) are simplified details, listed in bullets. Apparently, the strategy makes the review so clear that even lay persons can follow it with ease. For example, the study by Angela, Duffy, and Belyea on the evaluation of strategies to foster knowledge acquisition and critical thinking performance in nursing students, the sample contains 142 nursing students at the undergraduate junior level in the fall of 1996. Their average age is 24, and 93 percent of them are females (Spector, 2006). In compliance with comparison studied, the study applies a structured format for health pattern as well as assessment versus unstructured format. Some of the procedures used in the research include longitudinal, quasi-experimental study via a pre-/post test deign as well as case study questionnaires to assess knowledge and determine features of critical thinking. The key result availed comprise of the proof that learning traits were an indicator to effective teaching strategy and unstructured approach as an efficient method to those without a previous degree. Under the strengths & weaknesses section, the most important points include the identification of the study among the few that tested critical thinking during clinical experiences, a need for citations of psychometrics of measurement tools, and the assignment of students to groups through a stratified random procedure. Regarding the implications for boards, Spector (2006) highlights that teaching strategies could affect characteristics of students.
Overall Findings
The findings of the review comply explicitly stated by Spector in the last part of the article. To enhance clarity, they are stated in point form. First, the review proposes a need to assess education structure, processes, as well as outcomes. What is more, Spector proposes the validation of courses that entail personal improvement to improve teaching continuous quality. Again, reducing noises and distraction in the environment is pertinent to foster learning. Also of concern is incorporating traditional and problem-centered learning to promote outcomes (Spector, 2006). Another finding focuses on helping faculty members to adopt a student-based method of instruction. Besides, the systematic research review supports the essence of interdisciplinary groups in health care, as recommended by the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Spector also underscores the idea of using portfolios to assess student learning. Furthermore, the review encourages thinking aloud as a core strategy towards clinical reasoning. Finally, Spector proposed increased involvement of peer mentorship programs to boost confidence levels of students in clinical scenarios.
Review of Conclusion
The conclusion of the review was exclusive, as Spector restated clearly the aims of her systematic review, limitations, and findings. Concisely, the main aim entailed identifying and reviewing articles related to nursing education outcomes. She notes that she had identified three level I systematic reviews, including professional competence and guidance to the assessment of health workers’ ability by Epstein and Hundert, the purpose of evaluating computer-assisted learning, as well as a systematic review of high-fidelity medical simulations on learning (Spector, 2006). On the other hand, Spector’s conclusion emphasizes that five studies justified the necessity of qualified faculty to quality teaching of nursing scholars. As such, the comprehensive summary serves as a basis for future studies in outcomes of nursing education. Since it is the first systematic review in medical education, scholars are likely to utilize it as the main reference point.
Reference
Spector, N. (2006). Systematic Review of Studies of Nursing Education Outcomes: An Evolving Review. Retrieved from https://ncsbn.org/Final_Sys_Review_04_06.pdf
