NUR 550 Distinguish between reliability and validity in research design

NUR 550 Distinguish between reliability and validity in research design

NUR 550 Distinguish between reliability and validity in research design

Topic 4 DQ1

 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 Sciences14(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 Journal8(3), 2694-2726. : http://dx.doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i3.1540

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

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

NUR 550 Distinguish between reliability and validity in research design
NUR 550 Distinguish between reliability and validity in research design

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

Great post Susan. I am excited to be able to continue to learn more on your project as I am a person who loves process improvements and intervention implementation to prevent more hospital acquired infections such as CAUTI. In my research PICOT question on wounds, it will be important to make sure the information in my research is reliable and valid as is yours. According to the institute for work and health (2016) it is important in your research to verify that the content is considered valid when it actually measures what it is intended to measure. Therefore, its important to verify in your research you have a valid article that proves the research. When I think of these two concepts sometimes it can be confusing in my opinion, because its important to make sure the validity and reliability measure together. I am excited to continue to learn more on research articles and how they are developed behind the nursing scenes.

Institue for Work and Health. (2016). Validity and Reliability. https://www.iwh.on.ca/what-researchers-mean-by/validity-and-reliability

 

I am not surprised to find that nurses perceived practice with a skill is not necessarily their actual practice.  At a previous facility I worked at the infection prevention nurses would do CAUTI audits as part of their rounding to assist with education and prevention of CAUTIs.  One thing that was implemented by the infection prevention team was to send a urinalysis for every foley catheter upon insertion.  That way it would assist in determining which patients may have already had a UTI and therefore the infection was not caused by the foley insertion.

 

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/