NU 631 Week 12 Assignment 1: Critiquing a Quantitative Research Study REGIS
NU 631 Week 12 Assignment 1: Critiquing a Quantitative Research Study REGIS
The Article “Cervical Cancer Risk Factors: A Case-Control Study” is a quantitative research review measuring the risk factors that are associated with cervical cancer. The Corresponding author of this article, Nainakshi Kashyap holds a master’s degree in nursing and these authors are affiliated with the National Institute of Nursing Education, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Identifying the Steps of the Quantitative Research Process
Choose of problem area and purpose
There is a correlation between the cervical cancer and education, place of residence, use of old cloth sanitary napkins, young age at marriage, washing the genitalia after sexual intercourse, number of husband’s sexual partners.
Review of literature, identification of research gap
There was no literature review conducted by the authors. This article was solely based on previous research only to prove a point.
Formulation of a research question, hypothesis, or objective
The main objective of this article was that cervical cancer is one of the most common malignancies in women. The study was conducted to establish the risk factors for this disease in women 25-80 years of age.
Selection of research design
This study was quantitative, and its research design was case-control design.
Identification of the framework for the study
The article’s framework of this study is very unclear. It my belief that it is to determine the risk factors of cervical cancer in women.
Conceptual and operational definition of study variables
The conceptual variables including knowing that Cervical cancer is one of the world’s most common cancer, this cancer progresses damages the whole-body system by system and its mostly found in developing countries. The operational variables are: – 27500 deaths have been due to cervical cancers, with 88% being people in developed countries. Between 20-29 years of age, Cervical cancer cases start to rise, peaking between 55-64 years, then there is a decrease after 65 years.
Independent and Dependent variables
The independent variables include age, age at first coitus, getting married at a young age before 18 years, multiple sexual partners, low socio-economic status, Human Papilloma virus (HPV), multiple childbirths, education, and health related questions. The dependent factor is that women do not get regular pap smears which help detect Cervical cancer. This is largely due to lack of knowledge.
Definition of population and sample
The targeted population was all patients that went to the gynecology outpatient department (OPD) in. the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) in Chandigarh. These patients were between 25-80 years of age. 150 people participated in this study which was done in India. The women that were diagnosed with Cervical cancer were the studies while those that did not get diagnosed were the controls.
Method of Measurement and datal analysis
Baseline categorical and continuous variables were measured using the Chi-square test with Yate’s correction. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The statistical data was analyzed using the SPSS version 16.0.
Formulation plan for data collection
Face to face interviews were conducted for participants both the cases and controls. The questions were asked in Hindu and were mainly basic such as participant’s demographics, socio-economic status, sexual and reproductive activity, menstrual cycle, and the entire interview took about 35-40 minutes with each participant.
How an intervention will be enacted
Interventions can be implemented by providing educational material to women beginning at age 16. These educational materials should be translated in language they can understand (Hindu).
Implementation of pilot study if applicable
There was no pilot study conducted prior to this study.
Implementation of study
A few implementations such as bringing awareness to the women about Cervical cancer, opening clinics in rural areas where healthcare is scarce and strict policy for screening for women would be helpful in detecting and educating women about this cancer.
Data Analysis
The Chi-square was used to test risk factors of Cervical cancer and the multivariate analysis. The risks factors that significantly increased the possibility of carcinoma were analyzed. The multivariate analysis also evaluated social factors such as hygiene, utilizing health services and any co-morbidities.
Interpretation of findings
The sample size was small, and the study also had limitations which could have led to inaccurate results.
Communication of findings
The study found risk factors linked to cervical cancer. There was a strong correlation between cervical cancer and analphabetism. During menstruation, frequent washing showed a significant correlation with cervical cancer prevention. This research did not have an analysis of the literature which would have been helpful in comparing data from other studies.
Determining the strengths and weaknesses of the quantitative studies
The study gave support in finding that there was a positive correlation between cervical cancer and several risk factors. The risk factors linked to cervical cancer include illiteracy, not maintaining personal hygiene, residence in rural area, increased use of old cloth, marriage at an early age, not washing genitalia after sexual intercourse, and history of sexually transmitted infections. In a research article on Human papilloma virus (HPV), it was reported that HPV was responsible for 70 percent of cervical cancer diagnoses (Preti et al, 2020). Sexual behavior such as multiple partners, starting sexual activity at a young age, type and frequency of sexual practices are some of the risk factors that contribute to Cervical cancer.
This study employed the case-control design which was appropriate for this type of study and hence a strength for the article. A case-control design is an observatory type of design that relies on the participants’ status for the outcome. Case-control designs are useful in finding associations of risk factors and outcomes in investigations (Setia, 2016). Clear definitions of the variables were well presented, and they were measured adequately using the measurement methods mentioned before.
Among the weaknesses of the study, there was no established systemic analysis noted in this study. Another weakness noted was the sample size. Compared to other studies previously conducted, 150 participants are considered a small size which largely affects the outcome of the study.
Evaluating a quantitative study
This study was meant to investigate risk factors related to cervical cancer in women between 25-80 years of age. However, this study did not follow any of the previous studies ‘research purpose, problems, designs, measurement methods. Additionally, there was no review of literature which would have helped provide more information on the study. Also, the age of participants in the study leads to questioning whether it would be better for screening to start at 10 or even 8 years of age instead of 25. The Center for Disease Control suggests vaccinating children as young as 11 for HPV (Medline.org, 2018) because that how young they become sexually active.
Through the study, a lot of risk factors related to cervical cancer were found. However, one is left to wonder whether there is a program set up for women to be screened for this cancer, because if there is, then it is not being tracked to obtain data.
Important information for writing discussion questions and participation
Welcome to class
Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to
I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you.
Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted.
If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations.
Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements.
Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week.
I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course!
Hi Class,
Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts.
Contact me if you have any questions.
Important information on Writing a Discussion Question
- Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references)
- There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article.
- Include in-text citations in your response
- Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information
- Follow APA-7th edition
- Points will be deducted if the above is not followed
Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor
- A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week.
- Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article
- Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references)
- Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count.
- Follow APA 7th edition
- Points will be deducted if the above is not followed
- Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points.
- Here are some helpful links
- The is a great resource
References
Gray, J. R., Grove, S. K., & Sutherland, S. (2017). chapter 18. In The practice of nursing research: appraisal, synthesis and generation of evidence (pp. 431–450). essay, Elsevier.
Kashyap, N., Krishnan, N., Kaur, S., & Ghai, S. (2019). Risk Factors of Cervical Cancer: A Case-Control Study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing, 6(3), 308. https://doi.org/10.4103/apjon.apjon_73_18
Preti, M., Rosso, S., Micheletti, L., Libero, C., Sobrato, I., Giordano, L., Busso, P., Gallio, N., Cosma, S., Bevilacqua, F., & Benedetto, C. (2020). Risk of HPV-related extra-cervical cancers in women treated for cervical in… https://doi.org/https://doaj.org/article/3c63042eab9e4084a4e04b8966617944
Setia, M. S. (2016). Methodology Series Module 2: Case-control Studies. Indian journal of dermatology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4817437/.
U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2020, July 31). Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Test: MedlinePlus Medical Test. MedlinePlus. https://medlineplus.gov/lab-tests/human-papillomavirus-hpv-test/.
Week 12 Assignment 1: Critiquing a Quantitative Research Study
Value: 100 points
Due: Day 7
Grading category: Assignments
Overview
You will be writing a quantitative critique on one of the studies provided. You will critically appraise the study in a paper.
Choose one of the following Quantitative Journal Articles:
- da Silva João, A. L., & Saldanha Portelada, A. F. (2019). . Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(13), 2797–2812.
- Dokun-Mowete, C. A., Sharma, M., & Beatty, F. (2019). . International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 39(4), 245–255.
- Kashyap, N., Krishnan, N., Kaur, S., & Ghai, S. (2019). . Asia-Pacific Journal of Oncology Nursing, 6(3), 308–314.
Assignment Instructions
- Read your selected journal article entirely.
- Analyze the journal article and use the specific questions that are outlined in Gray and Grove (2020) found on pages 534 through 541 to construct your analysis of your chosen quantitative research study.
These are the main headers of your paper:
- Identifying the Steps of the Quantitative Research Process
- Determination of Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Studies
- Evaluating a Quantitative Study
You have many questions to address in your assignment this week. They should be in complete sentences (i.e., bullet point responses are not acceptable).
APA format is required. Page length, excluding the title and references list, is between five and seven pages.
Please refer to the for details on how this activity will be graded.
To Submit Your Assignment:
- Select the Add Submissions button.
- Drag or upload your file to the File Picker.
- Select Save Changes.
Writing Assignment Rubric
Note: Scholarly resources are defined as evidence-based practice, peer-reviewed journals; textbook (do not rely solely on your textbook as a reference); and National Standard Guidelines. Review assignment instructions, as this will provide any additional requirements that are not specifically listed on the rubric.
| Criteria | Exemplary Exceeds Expectations |
Advanced Meets Expectations |
Intermediate Needs Improvement |
Novice Inadequate |
Total Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content of Paper | The writer demonstrates a well-articulated understanding of the subject matter in a clear, complex, and informative manner. The paper content and theories are well developed and linked to the paper requirements and practical experience. The paper includes relevant material that fulfills all objectives of the paper.
Follows the assignment instructions around expectations for scholarly references. Uses scholarly resources that were not provided in the course materials. All instruction requirements noted. 30 points |
The writer demonstrates an understanding of the subject matter, and components of the paper are accurately represented with explanations and application of knowledge to include evidence-based practice, ethics, theory, and/or role. Course materials and scholarly resources support required concepts. The paper includes relevant material that fulfills all objectives of the paper.
Follows the assignment instructions around expectations for scholarly references. All instruction requirements noted. 26 points |
The writer demonstrates a moderate understanding of the subject matter as evidenced by components of the paper being summarized with minimal application to evidence-based practice, theory, or role-development. Course content is present but missing depth and or development.
Does not follow the assignment instructions around expectations for scholarly references. Only uses scholarly resources that were provided in the course materials. Most instruction requirements are noted. 23 points |
Absent application to evidence-based practice, theory, or role development. Use of course content is superficial.
Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation. Content of paper is inaccurately portrayed or missing. Does not follow the assignment instructions around expectations for scholarly references. Does not use scholarly resources. Missing some instruction requirements. 20 points |
30 |
| Analysis and Synthesis of Paper Content and Meaning | Through critical analysis, the submitted paper provides an accurate, clear, concise, and complete presentation of the required content.
Information from scholarly resources is synthesized, providing new information or insight related to the context of the assignment by providing both supportive and alternative information or viewpoints. All instruction requirements noted. 30 points |
Paper is complete, providing evidence of further synthesis of course content via scholarly resources.
Information is synthesized to help fulfill paper requirements. The content supports at least one viewpoint. All instruction requirements noted. 26 points |
Paper lacks clarification or new information. Scholarly reference supports the content without adding any new information or insight. The paper’s content may be confusing or unclear, and the summary may be incomplete.
Most instruction requirements are noted. 23 points |
Submission is primarily a summation of the assignment without further synthesis of course content or analysis of the scenario.
Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation. Missing some instruction requirements. Submits assignment late. 20 points |
30 |
| Application of Knowledge | The summary of the paper provides information validated via scholarly resources that offer a multidisciplinary approach.
The student’s application in practice is accurate and plausible, and additional scholarly resource(s) supporting the application is provided. All questions posed within the assignment are answered in a well-developed manner with citations for validation. All instruction requirements noted. 30 points |
A summary of the paper’s content, findings, and knowledge gained from the assignment is presented.
Student indicates how the information will be used within their professional practice. All instruction requirements noted. 26 points |
Objective criteria are not clearly used, allowing for a more superficial application of content between the assignment and the broader course content.
Student’s indication of how they will apply this new knowledge to their clinical practice is vague. Most instruction requirements are noted. 23 points |
The application of knowledge is significantly lacking.
Student’s indication of how they will apply this new knowledge to their clinical practice is not practical or feasible. Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation. Application of knowledge is incorrect and/or student fails to explain how the information will be used within their personal practice. Missing several instruction requirements. Submits assignment late. 20 points |
30 |
| Organization | Well-organized content with a clear and complex purpose statement and content argument. Writing is concise with a logical flow of ideas.
5 points |
Organized content with an informative purpose statement and supportive content and summary statement. Argument content is developed with minimal issues in content flow.
4 points |
Poor organization, and flow of ideas distract from content. Narrative is difficult to follow and frequently causes reader to reread work.
Purpose statement is noted. 3 points |
Illogical flow of ideas. Missing significant content. Prose rambles. Purpose statement is unclear or missing.
Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation. No purpose statement. Submits assignment late. 2 points |
5 |
| APA, Grammar, and Spelling | Correct APA formatting with no errors.
The writer correctly identifies reading audience, as demonstrated by appropriate language (avoids jargon and simplifies complex concepts appropriately). Writing is concise, in active voice, and avoids awkward transitions and overuse of conjunctions. There are no spelling, punctuation, or word-usage errors. 5 points |
Correct and consistent APA formatting of references and cites all references used. No more than two unique APA errors.
The writer demonstrates correct usage of formal English language in sentence construction. Variation in sentence structure and word usage promotes readability. There are minimal to no grammar, punctuation, or word-usage errors. 4 points |
Three to four unique APA formatting errors.
The writer occasionally uses awkward sentence construction or overuses/inappropriately uses complex sentence structure. Problems with word usage (evidence of incorrect use of thesaurus) and punctuation persist, often causing some difficulties with grammar. Some words, transitional phrases, and conjunctions are overused. Multiple grammar, punctuation, or word usage errors. 3 points |
Five or more unique formatting errors or no attempt to format in APA.
The writer demonstrates limited understanding of formal written language use; writing is colloquial (conforms to spoken language). The writer struggles with limited vocabulary and has difficulty conveying meaning such that only the broadest, most general messages are presented. Grammar and punctuation are consistently incorrect. Spelling errors are numerous. Submits assignment late. 2 points |
5 |
| Total Points | 100 | ||||
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!