Data Collection and Reliability

Post #1 Critique In looking at the first post, there are a few concerns and things that perhaps were not fully addressed. First up is whether the variables were identified. Of course, the main variable under consideration is the alarms and the scheduling/setting thereof. There are mentions of the alarms and how they figure into the research but there is not really any explicit mention of the type of variable in question when speaking of the alarms. The closest that the response comes is the response to part 2.

As for whether the tool itself was covered, that was actually done quite well. This was greatly covered in the first answer and it is the first thing mentioned within the same. When it comes to whether the way the tools were described were good, that was done fairly well. There is the expected and proper talk of reliability and validity. Those are hallmarks of any good research, of course. Question three and the answer to the same does a good job of showing who did the research.

Per the answer, the answers and details were collected by research assistants. One thing that was identified and that stood out is that the RA's were not trained clinically. This is a little concerning but it is wise for the initial respondent to point that out. A key part of analyzing this research response is the talk about how using RA's was actually wise versus that of nurses because of how the latter might "assume" things.

The author of this response disagrees with that and asserts that whomever is doing the data collection, whomever they are, should not assume anything and should be clinically trained. As such, the respondent is really only half right in respect to the wisdom of using RA's such as they were.

The associations and conclusions that can be made from all of this would include the fact of whether the data was properly collected, whether the questions were asked in the right way, whether the RA's were trained in the right manner to keep the data pure and relevant and so forth. Using data collection tools and research are not rocket science, so to speak, but non-medical researchers doing medical research is a bit concerning to say the least (Cucolo & Perroca, 2006).

Post #2 Critique This response does a very good job of identifying the variables. It is one of the first things that is covered, that being in the second paragraph. Similar adeptness is displayed when it comes to the tool that was used, a survey in this case. The survey is identified, the number of questions and the type of questions are all specifically mentioned in the third paragraph of the response.

There was a clear discussion about how appropriate the tool was in terms of what it looked at and how it was looked at. Indeed, there is a direct critique of the Likert scale that was used as part of the tool in question. When it comes to whether the precise data collection mentioned was mentioned, that was clearly in effect as well.

In terms of what stands out, the author of the second post both identifies the error but also mentions whether that is enough to threaten the validity and the reliability of what is stated. For example, the fact that a Likert-style scale is used is mentioned but so is the fact that the original article does not specifically identify it as that precise tool. Something else that was mentioned was that the questions could induce or create bias.

The poster gives a little bit of faith about the quality of the results despite the lack of proper definition of terms and methods is perhaps a leap of faith. However, it is.