Critique of Kalischuk's study on nursing preceptors' experiences

An Analysis of “Nursing Preceptors Speak Out” The study by Kalischuk, Vandenberg and Awosoga (2013) focused on the viewpoints of nursing preceptors with regard to “benefits, rewards, supports, challenges, and commitment” of and to their role as preceptors (p. 30). The study was quantitative with data obtained from a six-part questionnaire, and a set of four open-ended questions used to verify questionnaire responses and deepen responses, with content analysis used to assess them. This paper will critique the study and identify its strengths and weaknesses overall.

Credibility The study has credibility, as its main author is a credentialed Professor of Nursing, and the two assistant authors are a PHD student and an Academic Assistant in the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Lethbridge. The title identifies the focus of the study by naming the sample of participants and the aim of the study.

Abstract and Introduction The abstract clearly identifies the purpose and clearly defines what the authors did and why they did it. The methods, results and findings are all described in the abstract, which is in line with the recommendations of Vrijhoef & Steuten (2007). The introduction adequately identified the need for the study: “Although researchers have begun to describe the preceptor role, there is still much to learn about how preceptors understand their multifaceted role within nursing education” (Kalischuk et al., 2013, p. 30). The problem is stated, the significance of the problem is clearly defined and a literature review is conducted to support the study.
Variables were identified (and the problem of not including all possible variables was discussed as a limitation). The population and setting were identified and sufficient background was provided. The purpose was clearly stated. Literature Review The references used in the literature review were not very current. Most of the studies were published more than 10 years prior to the publication of the study. This could be, however, because not much literature has been published on the nursing preceptors’ views and experiences. The study essentially summarized what is known but pointed out that researchers are only just beginning to broach this subject—so not much, in fact, was known prior to the study.

Framework The authors did not discuss a conceptual framework for the study. The authors did discuss variables but not in conceptual terms, and no concept map was provided. A hypothesis was provided—namely “that the low response rate may have further validated the heavy workloads that nurses repeatedly reported in this study” (Kalischuk et al., 2013, p. 32) but this was neither a null nor an alternative hypothesis, but rather a guess made by the researchers to explain a possible correlation.

Methodology This section was strongly detailed and appropriately configured. The methods used were highly suitable to a quantitative, descriptive, correlational study. However, validity was not addressed. No framework was provided. No hypothesis (null or alternative) was made, and variables were not discussed or justified in depth. The strength of the methodology section essentially was based on its discussion of data collection methods, measurements and analysis. The sample was justified and the purposive sampling method appropriate. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were not discussed and avoidance of type II errors was not discussed (as no hypotheses were made in the first place). No power analysis was conducted for the sample. Ethical considerations are described with regard to participants and to data collection methods.

Results, Discussion and Evaluation Data analysis procedures were appropriate for the type of data collected and were clearly described. Missing data was managed by listwise deletion which the researchers considered safe as the total percentage of missing data was less than 5%. Analysis 
techniques addressed the study’s purpose, but there was no discussion of power for statistical results, as it was already stated that participant response rate was low. Results were presented in an understandable way and interpretation was logical but no consistent with a framework, as no framework was provided.
Appropriate statistics tests were used (both parametric and nonparametric). Alpha was calculated to determine reliability: “the Cronbach's alpha value obtained for PPBR, PPS, and CPR scales were as follows: 0.916, 0.821, and 0.863, respectively (Table 2), indicating high inter-item reliability” (Kalischuk et al., 2013, p. 33). Tables were provided and were appropriate. Article Critique and Analysis of “Nursing Preceptors Speak Out” Findings were summarized and explained data presented in tables and figures. The discussion provided a brief interpretation of the findings; limitations were discussed, but external validity was not addressed. The study probably should have been qualitative as it leaned more towards being exploratory anyway.

Strengths and Weaknesses The strengths of the study are numerous: 1) the design is appropriate to the purpose of the study; 2) the study identified its own limitations and cited them as areas for further review; 3) the methodology was clearly stated and indicated that both validity and reliability could characterize the study; 4) a pilot questionnaire was used to verify that the researcher’s questions would measure what they intended to measure; and 5) the findings were discussed thoroughly and related back to the main problem.
The main weakness of the study is that it did not address the issue of self-reported data as a potential problem for validity or for underreporting in studies where surveys or questionnaires are used, as Auty, Farrington and Coid (2015) and Gemming, Jiang, Swinburn, Utter and Mhurchu (2014) have pointed out can be a problem. Also, it did not include a conceptual framework, which is something that can be helpful for showing how the researcher is approaching the subject in the first place (Heink & Jax, 2019). The secondary weakness of the study is that it does not provide enough exploratory research but rather only provides a narrow window into the problem—the study could have benefited from a mixed-methods approach, which is best used when qualitative and quantitative data can be combined relatively easily (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The limitations of the study are that it focuses wholly on the preceptors’ experience and shows no data from the student side of the problem; it relies almost exclusively on quantitative data; and it did not address geography as a factor in shaping preceptor views, which suggests the study may not be as reliable or valid as first assumed. As Yin (2018) notes, it is always important to use multiple sources of data. Likewise, obtaining data from multiple groups, populations or samples gives the opportunity for greater depth in terms of research and findings and the chance to broaden the application of the findings and enhance the study’s external validity (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2015). Modifications Ideas for future studies would be to obtain qualitative data to deepen the understanding of the problem; control for more variables (such as whether preceptors are in urban or rural settings, demographics, etc.); and include multiple sources of data—i.e., students, patients, nursing managers and so on.
References Auty, K. M., Farrington, D. P., & Coid, J. W. (2015). The validity of self-reported convictions in a community sample: Findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. European Journal of Criminology, 12(5), 562-580. Gemming, L., Jiang, Y., Swinburn, B., Utter, J., & Mhurchu, C. N. (2014). Under-reporting remains a key limitation of self-reported dietary intake: an analysis of the 2008/09 New Zealand Adult Nutrition Survey. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 68(2), 259. Heink, U., & Jax, K. (2019). Going Upstream—How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure. Ecological Economics, 156, 264-271. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. Kalischuk, R. G., Vandenberg, H., & Awosoga, O. (2013). Nursing preceptors speak out: an empirical study. Journal of Professional Nursing, 29(1), 30-38. Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2015). Research methods for business students (7th ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Education Unlimited. Vrijhoef, H. J. M., & Steuten, L. M. G. (2007). How to write an abstract. European Diabetes Nursing, 4(3), 124-127. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.