This paper examines the design, sample, and ethical concerns utilized in the chosen research studies. The article “The Experience of Patients Undergoing Awake Craniotomy” is a qualitative study.
The article “The Relationship Between Obesity and Asthma” is a quantitative study. The first step in critiquing a research study is to understand the scientific method. This includes understanding the purpose of the research, the design of the study, the sample used, and the ethical considerations involved.
When critiquing a research study it is important to consider the scientific method. The scientific method is a system used to investigate phenomena, acquire new knowledge or correct and integrate previous knowledge (Mayo Clinic, 2017). The steps in the scientific method are: identifying a problem or question, formulating a hypothesis, conducting research to test the hypothesis, analyzing data and results, and drawing conclusions. It is important to understand each of these steps when critiquing a research study.
The first step in the scientific method is to identify a problem or question. In the article “The Experience of Patients Undergoing Awake Craniotomy”, the authors identify the problem as “the little research that has been conducted on patients’ perceptions of awake craniotomy” (Maguire, Steel, & Gibson, 2016, p. 2).
The authors of “The Relationship Between Obesity and Asthma” state the purpose of their study is to “examine whether obesity is a risk factor for asthma” (Cohen et al., 2016, p. 1). It is important for the reader to know what the problem or question is that the authors are trying to answer with their research.
The second step in the scientific method is to formulate a hypothesis. A hypothesis is “a testable statement about how two or more variables are related” (Mayo Clinic, 2017). The authors of “The Experience of Patients Undergoing Awake Craniotomy” do not state a hypothesis. The authors of “The Relationship Between Obesity and Asthma” state their hypothesis as “obesity is associated with an increased risk of asthma” (Cohen et al., 2016, p. 1). It is important for the reader to know what the hypothesis is that the authors are testing with their research.
The goal of this research is to bridge the gap by determining how patients with chronic non-cancer pain experience and cope with this type of surgery under general anesthesia. “Although various methods are used, very little has been researched about how the patients feel, what they think about, or how they deal with this sort of surgery while sleeping anesthetized” (p. 166).
The study was undertaken to help fill this research gap. Palese et al. (2008) used the quantitative research method in order to better understand how patients feel about going into surgery and what their thoughts are while under anesthesia. In order to do this, they collected data through interviews with patients who had recently undergone surgery. They then analyzed this data using statistical methods in order to identify patterns and trends.
One of the key strengths of this study is that it used a scientific approach in order to collect data. This ensures that the data is reliable and can be used to draw conclusions about the population as a whole. Additionally, by using quantitative methods, the researchers were able to identify specific patterns and trends in the data which would not have been possible with a qualitative approach.
However, there are some limitations to the study. Firstly, it only included a small sample of patients, which may not be representative of the population as a whole. Additionally, the study relied on self-report data, which is often subject to biases such as social desirability bias. Finally, the study did not include any measure of post-operative satisfaction, which could provide valuable insights into how effective the surgery was for the patients.
Overall, this is a well-designed study that uses a scientific approach to collect data. However, there are some limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results.
I selected the experimental cross over design for my quantitative study because it allowed measurements to be taken on both groups that are then able to serve as their own controls.
The study also had a pre-test and post-test design which again is important in order to see how much the intervention has changed the participants. The study also seemed to be well powered with 80% power and a sample size of N=38.
One limitation I noticed was that the study did not use any blinding methods, which means that participants and researchers knew who was in the experimental and control group. This could potentially lead to bias because the researchers may have been more likely to find differences in the experimental group since they were expecting them. Another potential limitation is that the sample size was not very large, which means that the results may not be generalizable to a larger population.
Overall, I thought this was a well-designed study that used appropriate methods to investigate the research question.
In this experiment, group one served as the control group. Their blood pressure was taken with their feet on the floor. Group two acted as a test group in this study. The blood pressure of both groups was measured utilizing crossed legs. The roles were then reversed for the second part of the research.
Group one had their blood pressure taken with their legs crossed while group two had their blood pressure taken with their feet on the floor.
The scientific method was used in this study in order to control for any confounding variables. This is a quantitative research study because it uses numerical data to support or disprove a hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis is that crossing your legs while having your blood pressure taken will result in a higher reading.
The results of the study showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups when taking into account both the first and second portions of the study. Therefore, it can be concluded that crossing your legs does not impact blood pressure readings.
This research is important because it debunks a common myth. It is also useful for healthcare practitioners in order to give accurate readings to their patients.
