In tern the nursing student had a greater appreciation for a patient's quality of life over quantity of life. For this reviewer the situation becomes on of "shared governance" in the educational environment - a situation that needs to be strengthened is all aspect of healthcare wellness. Critique #2. As states in the first sentence of Critique #1, when a research investigator uses the words difference, effect, and/or relationship the reading audience is being put on notice that the intended research investigation is experimental and scientific in design. As such the independent (treatment), dependent (measurement), or a combination thereof, variables are being assessed and evaluated in line with a proposed research question and stated null hypothesis. The authors' of the article being reviewed did not alert the reader as to the specific research design of the study and by not doing so the reader is left in the dark as to what exactly is to me measured, how it is to be measured, and the expected results. Further, without an appropriate presentation with respect to design the sampling procedure used by the authors is suspect as well. During a discussion of the sample method the authors simply informed the reader that they contacted various hospitals and administered questionnaires to 295 potential participants. Knowing that this represents a population and sample at the same time is acceptable for research purposes; however, there was no indication as to stratification within the group in terms of gender, age, level, clinical specialty, and years of service. All these compounding variables should have been accounted for in the research design as they can possibly add to the "differences" in learning that the researchers intended to uncover.

Although the authors went to great lengths in explaining the assessment instrument used to garner their measurement data, along...

This information is necessary for the reader to be able to accept or not accept the chosen statistical tool used to analyze the measurement data. In terms of the most appropriate statistical tool to have been used to analyze the resulting measurement data the authors truly failed in this respect. Not until the discussion section of the research report was the reader primed that an ANOVA (analysis of variance) was used to seek differences between the sample groups. This should have been clearly outlined in the very beginning of the study. What was most alarming, however, was the fact that the authors never once brought to light, through discussion, the actual F. values received. The use of an ANOVA statistical technique very clearly supports or does not support information contained in the null hypothesis - which the authors failed to state anyhow. As such the conclusions drawn at the end of the study are not based on the F. values received. In fact the majority of results were explained by way of "mean" differences rather that statistically significant F. values.
Because there exists so many research protocol infractions in the Thompson and Sheckley research investigation the results presented cannot be interpreted as being highly significant. This is not to say they are not, however significant. What is implied here is that had the authors taken the time to properly conduct their research they results would likely have been much more meaningful. Although the research cannot be described as ad hoc, neither can it be described as scientific. The limitations of design and execution, unfortunately, outweigh the strength of…