Reliability and Sample Methods Used peer reviewed nursing articles

Reliability and Sample Methods Used peer reviewed nursing articles
The article included all peer-reviewed articles that gave real-world data about the link between MCAT scores and how well medical schools do or how well they do on the medical board licensing test. The research for the study came from well-known databases like Medline, PsycINFO, and ERIC. Also, the factors for including a study in the meta-analysis were short and easy to understand. Only refereed journals were used, so the quality and reliability of the piece went up because it only used peer-reviewed studies. The process of getting the info was very methodical and involved a lot of steps. The study also used two coders (TD and EOP), and when there was a difference, a third coder (CV) checked it out. (Donnon et al., 2007). This proves that the story is true.

Appropriateness of Sampling Methods

The way they chose people to sample wasn’t right for the group they were trying to figure out. The sampling methods they used didn’t give them enough information to be able to test for the whole community. Also, the sampling method does not have a direct effect on how accurate and reliable the study is. The data comes from a number of first-hand studies, not from a random sample, so it can’t be used to prove cause and effect or test relationships. Even though meta-analysis is more reliable when done on randomized controlled trials, the study followed the rules for how to describe observational studies. (Ahn & Kang, 2018).

Dependability and Value

The article doesn’t say much about reliability and truth. So, mistakes and short reviews during the early stages can hurt the internal validity. The study also doesn’t look at the risk of bias in the meta-analysis of studies. It has a coding system, but according to the Preferred Reporting Items Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, it doesn’t have a good comprehensive protocol in place. (Ahn & Kang, 2018).

In general, the validity and trustworthiness of the study are not good. This changes how well the results can be used in the future (eternal validity) and reduces bias. (internal validity). Even so, the study looked at how different all the studies were. The piece makes sense on its own, but it may not have enough test-retest and inter-rater reliability.

References

Donnon, T., Paolucci, E. O., & Violato, C. (2007). The predictive validity of the MCAT for medical school performance and medical board licensing examinations: a meta-analysis of the published research. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 82(1), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ACM.0000249878.25186.b7

Ahn, E., & Kang, H. (2018). Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean journal of anesthesiology, 71(2), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2018.71.2.103

OTHER URLS

Related Posts: