What Approach Should Be Used?

CKD - Design

Designing a study that evaluates an intervention must take several items into consideration in order to be determined as both reliable and valid; even if the study is in reality a health promotion goal, it is still necessary to treat it the same way a study would be treated. Determining what is reliable and what is valid therefore is an important step in both including those two objectives in a study, and achieving them as well. Study reliability is determined when the researcher can expect the same results time and time again by replicating research procedures. If a study is set up to determine results, and those results can be replicated, then the researcher can determine that the results are reliable. When the researcher is attempting to show reliability, the researcher wants an independent observer to be capable of replicating results of the study using the same methodologies implemented by the researcher. If this is accomplished then the researcher has achieved reliability.

Validity is different than reliability; validity is the determination of if a study is actually reflecting the concept that the researcher is trying to measure. The question can be asked therefore, did the study measure what it set out to measure?

Achieving reliability and validity is accomplished by developing a study that uses tools and procedures that will generate data and results that are both consistent and measure what the study wants to measure. A recent study determined that the study needed to "adopt, adapt, or construct an assessment instrument and testing protocol that could generate reliable and valid score data" (Schmitz, Chipman, Yoshida, Vogel, Sainfort, Beilman, Clinton, Copper, Reihsen, Sweet, 2014, p. 42).

This study seeks to accomplish similar objectives and therefore needs to ascertain whether a certain set of interventions can actually lower the incidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD). According to Schmitz et al., "we created decision rules for item inclusion, exclusion, and construction that promoted consistency throughout the instrument" (p. 43) This study attempts to follow the same course of action that Schmitz et al. took; using rules and guidelines in order to guide the researcher on how to act and determine what can be included and what will be excluded during the researcher's attempt to achieve the health promotion goal.

Additionally, the formative and summative approach to this health promotion goal must be addressed as well. A formative approach suggests that the research take an approach that allows the researcher to gain valuable knowledge during the time that the health promotion goal is being sought. Using a formative approach suggests that the researcher incorporates into the program (or study) the ability to change course as the study progresses. By adjusting the assessment strategies, the researcher is able to understand the process by which change is taking place, while at the same time determining just how effective the changes are. If the researcher observes something that is working then the researcher can continue with that, if on the other hand, the researcher determines a format or strategy that does not work, then it can be discarded or modified. A 2010 report showed that "formative assessment aims to improve the learning experience" (Jenkins, 2010, p. 566). Since this health promotion is all about learning, a formative approach might just be the most viable approach to take.

The formative approach may be viable, but the summative approach may take precedence during the course of this health promotion project.