NUR 550 Distinguish between reliability and validity in research design

Reliability and Validity

Reliability and validity are integral concepts in research design, on which the quality of data and the overall validity of research findings depend. Reliability is a measure of consistency: it gauges how well measurements remain stable over time, across different instruments or raters, or within a single measurement instrument, and is typically assessed through methods such as inter-rater reliability or test-retest reliability (Cevik, 2019). Validity, on the other hand, denotes whether a study is measuring what it set out to measure. A valid research study establishes that its results accurately reflect their intended objectives. Overall, when applied together, reliability and validity provide researchers with invaluable information necessary to critically evaluate research outcomes (Sürücü & Maslakçi, 2020).

Translational Research Article

Zolotarova, T., Dussault, C., Park, H., Varsaneux, O., Basta, N. E., Watson, L., … & Kronfli, N. (2023). Education increases COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people in Canadian federal prisons in a prospective randomized controlled trial: The EDUCATE study. Vaccine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.01.040

The methods section of the study effectively outlined its design, sample size, and data analysis techniques. The prospective randomized controlled trial used is widely considered the gold standard for research studies, and the sample size was optimal to detect a 10% increase in vaccination rate with a level of significance of 0.05 and 80% power (Zolotarova et al., 2023). Appropriate data analysis techniques were employed to reach their statistically significant results, demonstrating that this study can be viewed as reliable and valid.

In summary, it is essential for a reliable study to capture accurate results that can stand the test of time. To achieve this, researchers must implement a well-thought-out methodology and make sure that their data is evaluated carefully. Statistical techniques should be applied in order to both obtain as much useful information from the data as possible, but also to steer clear of any potential bias or errors caused by improper analysis. It is also important that the sample size is large enough so that the results will remain consistent if the study was implemented again. Finally, standardized measures or procedures are needed to ensure that the results are consistent regardless of variables such as location and type of respondent. Indeed, producing reliable studies requires focusing on multiple aspects of how it is conducted and its results interpreted.

References

Cevik, M. (2019). Multidimensional 21st Century Skills Scale: Validity and Reliability Study. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 14(1), 11-28. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1211726.pdf

Sürücü, L., & Maslakçi, A. (2020). Validity and reliability in quantitative research. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(3), 2694-2726. : http://dx.doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1540

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS NUR 550 Distinguish between reliability and validity in research design:

Validity indicates that the measure or instrument measures what it is supposed to measure. Reliability means that an instrument will measure the construct consistently every time it is used (Melnyk,2018).

The study from my graphic organizer about Knowledge, attitude, and practice in relation to catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) prevention: A cross-sectional study.

Knowledge of CAUTI prevention was found to be good, as 69.1% (n – 208) of the nurses scored more than 80% in this domain with a mean score of 83.34 (SD=7.19). Work-related variables did not show any influence on nurses’ knowledge level in this study. No differences were found in attitude and perceived practice pertaining to CAUTI prevention across all demographic and work- related variables. Pearson’s correlation results revealed a statistically significant positive relationship between knowledge and attitude. Knowledge was positively yet weakly related to attitude (r= .18, p = . 002). The results indicate that the questionnaire tool used is reliable and consistent in measuring knowledge and attitude about CAUTI (Mong,2022).

In this study the questionnaire about knowledge and attitude were found to influence nurses’ perceived practice of CAUTI prevention and attitude had the stronger effect. Data were self-reported by the nurses, which might have caused an inherent bias. Nurses’ perceived practice may not reflect their actual practice; thus, a more objective study in- volving the auditing of nurses’ actual CAUTI preventive practice is recommended. That means the validity of the tool used is questionable in measuring what it was supposed to measure (Mong,2022).

References

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-Based practice in nursing and healthcare (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer Health.

Mong. l. Ramoo. V., Ponnampalavanar. S. Chong, M. c., & wan Nawawi, W. N. F. (2022). Knowledge.attitude and practice in relation to catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) prevention: A cross-sectional study. Journal of clinical Nursing. 31, 209- 219. https://doi.org/10.11 11/jocn.15899

Reliability and validity are both ways of measuring results of a study. Reliability refers to how consistent and reliable results are, and whether those same results could be reproduced using the same methods (Bannigan & Watson, 2009). Validity refers to how accurately a research method actually measures what it set out to measure (Bannigan & Watson, 2009). The study I wish to examine the reliability and validity of involves a randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of applying soft silicone dressings such as Mepilex Border to the sacral area of critically ill patients in the ICU as a preventative measure against pressure injuries.

The study included 440 trauma and critically ill patients admitted to the ED and subsequently transferred to the ICU. These patients participated in a trial designed as a prospective open-label randomized controlled trial, which means that participants were chosen at random to receive the intervention, and both participants and researchers knew which group the patient was in or which intervention they were receiving (Santamaria, et al., 2015). The study discusses the specific inclusion criteria that must be met for patients to participate, as well as the intervention participants would receive. The study does have fairly solid validity, as it set out to measure whether the addition of Mepilex Border dressings to the sacral area helps prevent pressure injuries, and that is exactly what the results include. Overall the methods described in the study are reliable and replicable with one exception. The study described the control group as receiving “usual pressure ulcer prevention strategies”, but does not specifically list what those usual strategies are. While pressure injury prevention strategies are grossly the same across organization or even countries, variances can occur. I feel like the preventative care the control group is receiving should be described as specifically as the trial group so that the results can be replicated, especially since the trial group is receiving that preventative care plus the application of the dressing. Those wishing to implement this intervention within their own organizations would need to know what those specific preventative measures are so they can also determine if anything additional might be beneficial to patients in preventing pressure injuries.

References:

Bannigan, K., & Watson, R. (2009). Reliability and validty ina nutshell. Journal of Clinical Nursing. Retrieved from chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://my.enmu.edu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=299fd446-72fa-4e09-9681-51825a0cb1b7&groupId=4153058&filename=sbbannigan-nur502.pdf

Santamaria, N., Gerdtz, M., Sage, S., McCann, J., Freeman, A., Vassilou, T., . . . Knott, J. (2015). A randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of soft silicone multi‐layered foam dressings in the prevention of sacral and heel pressure ulcers in trauma and critically ill patients: the border trial. International World Journal, 12(3), 302-308. Retrieved from https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.lopes.idm.oclc.org/pmc/articles/PMC7950350/

According to Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt (2019) validity in research is when the instrument actually measures what it is supposed to, and reliability means that the instrument will measure the same consistently every time it is being used. It’s important to have validity and reliability in your research to allow for the users to have confidence about the accuracy of the data collected (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2019).

The translational research article I used in my graphic organizer was by Dr. Ennis and Sheridan (2021) where they collected observational data from their clinics within healogics. The data was collected on the patients from various clinics to determine which debridement method demonstrated the most benefit to the patients. It will be important to validate the observation with the patients to make sure the result is measuring the same for different patients. The first results showed when patients had an increase in visits and debridement was done once every week there was an increase in the healing rate (Ennis & Sheridan, 2019). The second finding showed that when debridement was completed even once, the patient had better healing rates than if debridement was not done at all. The observations were done on various stages of wounds. Another observation that was observed is when a wound stalled, if they reserved debridement within two weeks of stalling there was at 55.8% increase in healing compared to 49% when they were not debrided (Ennis & Scheridan, 2018). After reviewing the methodology and results it shows this article is both reliable and valid. Information was observed after treatment and leads to a valid method of collected the data and the information was shown to prove the same results across the board.

Ennis, W. & Sheridan, M. (2021). The use of Modalities in Wound Care Part 1: Debridement. Healogics. https://n2r8m7y5.stackpathcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Use-of-Modalities-in-WC-Pt.-1_WP.pdf

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2019). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer. ISBN-13: 9781496384539

According to Middleton (2023), both concepts are used to evaluate the quality of research. Reliability is measurement of consistency while validity is the measurement of accuracy (Middleton, 2023). Both of these are used in research and especially translational research. In the Kawalkita et al. (2019) article the researchers use a quasi-experimental study of women undergoing a cesarean section. The method that they used included implementing an evidenced-based surgical bundle that was used on scheduled cesarean section women. The results of the study concluded that the use of the surgical bundle decreased the rates of surgical site infections (Kawalkita et al., 2019). The reliability of this study was maintained because the uses of the surgical bundle was consistent throughout the entire study. With a total of 3,942 women undergone a cesarean section, 312 were exclude because they delivered during the implantation period. Another 483 women were excluded because their deliveries were emergent or diagnosed chorioamnionitis (Kawalkita et al., 2019). With the remaining women, the measurement of reliability was consistent in the study. The validity of the study was measured by the accuracy of the surgical bundle. According to Kawalkita et al. (2019), the compliance was more than 70% in the post-implementation period. Both of these concepts relate to translational research because this study can be used and redone in various other hospitals to see the end result. This is translating and replicating the research to get a wider array of results that can be validated for future evidence-based practice.

Reference:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30633146/

Kawakita, T., Iqbal, S. N., Landy, H. J., Huang, J. C., & Fries, M. (2019). Reducing Cesarean Delivery Surgical Site Infections: A Resident-Driven Quality Initiative. Obstetrics and gynecology, 133(2), 282–288. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003091

Middleton, F. (2023, January 30). Reliability vs. validity in research: Difference, types and examples. Scribbr. Retrieved February 22, 2023, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/reliability-vs-validity/

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH ONLINE NURSING PAPERS TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT

NUR 550 Distinguish Between Reliability And Validity In Research Design