Quantitative Design of the Article

The quantitative design of the research study conducted by Allen, Holland and Reynolds (2015) as depicted in their article “The Effect of Bullying on Burnout in Nurses: The Moderating Role of Psychological Detachment” in the Journal of Advanced Nursing is based on a cross-sectional design method in which data was collected using survey questionnaires filled out by the participants. The data was self-reported and anonymously completed by 762 Australian RNs in 2011. The design of the study was oriented towards identifying the “relationship between bullying and burnout” among nurses (Allen et al., 2015, p. 381). The study also sought to assess the effect that nurse detachment might have in terms of serving as a buffer between bullying and burnout. The study developed two hypotheses for testing, using measures that were validated using “existing, published scales, which had previously demonstrated good levels of validity and reliability” (p. 385). Hierarchical regression was performed using SPSS software for both hypotheses, once all the data was accumulated from the questionnaires, which was scored using the Likert-scale.
The strengths of this design are that surveys can allow researchers to obtain data in relatively uniform and easy manner. As Auty, Farrington & Coid (2015) point out, “self-report surveys are among the most widely used methods of collecting data” among quantitative researchers (p. 563). Because this method is so widespread, it is a recognized accepted practice, as it gives researchers access to information that can be quantified and tested using analysis tools like SPSS and the regression method of analysis. The Likert-scale is a practical means of scoring responses to allow for statistical analysis. So this combination of research design, methods of data collection and data analysis make this type of quantitative study especially strong. In other words, this design can enable the researcher to measure the variables it intends to measure.
The limitations of this design are that self-reported data can lead to underreporting, which can give researchers a false impression of the actual reality of a situation (Gemming, Jiang, Swinburn, Utter & Mhurchu, 2014). A better design would be to conduct a randomized controlled trial in which participants were selected at random so that a more accurate representation of the reality of the situation could be obtained. Randomized controlled trials are the highest level of evidence that research studies can obtain. However, for many studies, the randomized controlled trial is simply not feasible due to limitations involved in the collection of data or the scope of the study. Thus, this study is limited in terms of reliability—under a different set of circumstances or using a different data collection method, the results might differ.
These strengths and limitations are reflected in the study’s design in the fact that it (a) it is strong because it uses a popular and accepted survey method to test two hypotheses related to the question of the effect of bullying on burnout and whether nurses become detached from their work as a means of creating a buffer between the two; however, (b) it is limited because the self-reporting survey questionnaire method can lead to underreporting on the phenomenon in question, which can cause results to be skewed one way or another. To make the study stronger, the researchers would need to design the study so that it yields level 1 evidence using randomized controlled trials for testing the hypotheses. In terms of validity and reliability, the study may be said to measure the variables it intends to measure, but there is no guarantee that other variables were not impacting the results or that the results could be repeated using a different sample.
References
Allen, B. C., Holland, P., & Reynolds, R. (2015). The Effect of Bullying on Burnout in
Nurses: The Moderating Role of Psychological Detachment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(2), 381-390. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bfa0/a66f81e5930599df9391ccdf504c3cf1aac2.pdf
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.