Statistics research critique

Please strictly follow the direction for this assignment and use the RUBRIC to complete as directed. A SAMPLE of a similarly used RUBRIC is attached for your understanding.

Research Critique Introduction

I want to talk about the Research Statistical Critique assignment. You will choose one of the 4 (four) articles provided on this assignment page. Do not submit your own article. You must use one of the 4 linked articles in the assignment directions.

You will use a rubric to critique the various parts of the study provided. It is your opinion. You should not use any quotes, or references unless you use an outside source to substantiate your opinion, such as Polit and Beck (2017). More information about the critique process can be found in Polit and Beck (2017), p. 291 if you want more information about it.

Describe what you believe the findings are. For example, you would identify what sampling method is used- probability vs non-probability sampling. Then you would identify the specific type of sampling technique used.

Fill in the rubric- this will be faster for you and faster for the faculty to grade the assignment. Be sure to check out the Critique FAQ for any questions students may have asked in the past.

Quantitative Critique Rubric 2.6.2021.docx ATTACHED

Article to Critique:-

Klotzbaugh, R., Ballout, S., & Spencer, G. (2020). Results and implications from a gender minority health education module for advance practice nurses. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 32, 332-338.

2020. Klotzbaugh et al. Results_and_implications_from_a_gender_minority..pdf ATTACHED

Please note:

Be sure to use a model such as Johns Hopkins Evidence Level and Quality Guide Links to an external site. Links to an external site. ATTACHED

This assignment will consist of a quantitative article critique with a focus on the methods, statistics, analysis and interpretation. It will be important to analyze and evaluate the article not just summarize – for example it is not enough to say the sample size was adequate. You should state the sample size and state why you know it was adequate. Do NOT cut/paste from the article- this is YOUR interpretation and analysis of the article. If you use Polit or another source to substantiate your comment, then reference the source. Do not include quotes in the critique.

Write your critique directly into the rubric. Do not do it in paragraph form.

D
ow

nloaded
from

https://journals-lw
w
-com

.proxy1.nku.edu/jaanp
by

BhD
M
f5ePH

Kav1zEoum
1tQ

fN
4a+kJLhEZkD

2PQ
TEnA3Z5k45N

O
+rAW

97pzN
D
e/ZLw

aQ
vBaym

kdfkXhckm
SxLPM

FzBM
Q
PVR

81VLrL7Sp4W
m
X/97IK1XYfd82hEzjiG

c40Ytw
buZ0LX/gn7cEN

9w
gdyN

Q
==

on
04/29/2020

Downloadedfromhttps://journals-lww-com.proxy1.nku.edu/jaanpbyBhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZkD2PQTEnA3Z5k45NO+rAW97pzNDe/ZLwaQvBaymkdfkXhckmSxLPMFzBMQPVR81VLrL7Sp4WmX/97IK1XYfd82hEzjiGc40YtwbuZ0LX/gn7cEN9wgdyNQ==on04/29/2020 Results and implications from a gender minority health
education module for advance practice nursing students

Ralph J. Klotzbaugh, PhD (Assistant Professor)1, Suha Ballout, RN, PhD (PhDAssistant Professor)2, &
Gale Spencer, RN, PhD (Distinguished Teaching Professor)3

ABSTRACT
Nursing literature has recognized deficits in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer-specific care. Of particular
concern is lack of knowledge about genderminorities. Lack of knowledge remains despite this populations’ increased
health disparities. This pilot study investigates pre- and post-knowledge of medical guidelines, disparities, policies,
and attitudes specific to gender minorities among advanced practice nursing students attending a gender minority
health module. All participants in this pilot study completed a questionnaire on content and a transphobia scale to
evaluate its effect on attitudes. Students were also surveyed on previous experience with gender minority patients.
Students indicated sex and gender identity as female, with a mean age of 33.5 years. Twenty-seven percent of the
students reported experience with gender minority patients. Wilcoxon signed rank test indicated statistically sig-
nificant improvement in knowledge and improved scores on transphobia. This study demonstrated a module on the
health of gender minorities is an effective method for increasing student knowledge of gender minority health care.
Keywords: Advance practice education; cultural competency; gender minority; transgender.

DOI# 10.1097/JXX.0000000000000249

Background
Nursing literature has recognized deficits in knowledge of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ)-
specific care needs and considerations among nursing
students, educators, and care providers (Cornelius,
Enweana, Alston, & Baldwin, 2017; Lim, Johnson, & Eliason,
2015). In their study on perspectives of provider behaviors
among LGBTQ-identified clients, Rounds, Mcgrath, and
Walsh (2013) determined that although antidiscrimina-
tion laws have gradually improved attitudes and accep-
tance of LGBTQ individuals, knowledge related to the
LGBTQhealth needs continues

RUBRIC FOR WEEK 4

Quantitative Critique Rubric:5.25.20

Quantitative Critique Rubric:5.25.20

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntent of the research: is the title clear?

1 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWhat is the RQ if stated? What is the hypothesis if stated? (3) What are the issues or variables being studied? What are the IV and DV variables? (3)

6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSignificance of the study: How is the research problem significant to nursing, How will the findings improve practice (5 points)

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMethods: What is the study design? Describe. Was this appropriate? (5) What is the level of evidence in this research? Describe the model used to evaluate level of research. (3)

8 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWas the sample randomized or not randomized? (3) Was the process of sample selection addressed? Was the sample size adequate? Was a power analysis done? (3) What evidence was provided that biases were eliminated or minimized? What steps were taken to control confounding participant characteristics that could affect the equivalence of groups being compared? Were these steps adequate? (6)

12 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMethods: What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria? (3) Describe the instrument used- was it reliable/valid? Is this addressed? (3)

6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProcedures: Describe how the data was collected. Was it consistent? (3) Was the DV always obtained in the same manner? (3)

6 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis: What type of analysis was done? Identify the statistics used- appropriate for level of measurement? All assumptions met? (5) Was analysis appropriate for the design/methods used? Was rational provided for the use of statistical tests? (3)

8 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWere the relevant sample demographics described? (3) Were they used to answer RQ when inferential statistics would have been more appropriate? (3) What were the results of the study? (3) Were any results significant? What do the tests tell about the RQ or hypotheses? (3) Were any tests non-signi

Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice
Appendix D
Evidence Level and Quality Guide

Evidence Levels Quality Ratings

Level I

Experimental study, randomized controlled trial
(RCT)

Explanatory mixed method design that includes
only a level I quaNtitative study

Systematic review of RCTs, with or without meta-
analysis

QuaNtitative Studies
A High quality: Consistent, generalizable results; sufficient sample size for the study design; adequate

control; definitive conclusions; consistent recommendations based on comprehensive literature review that
includes thorough reference to scientific evidence.

B Good quality: Reasonably consistent results; sufficient sample size for the study design; some control,
fairly definitive conclusions; reasonably consistent recommendations based on fairly comprehensive
literature review that includes some reference to scientific evidence.

C Low quality or major flaws: Little evidence with inconsistent results; insufficient sample size for the
study design; conclusions cannot be drawn.

QuaLitative Studies
No commonly agreed-on principles exist for judging the quality of quaLitative studies. It is a subjective
process based on the extent to which study data contributes to synthesis and how much information is known
about the researchers’ efforts to meet the appraisal criteria.
For meta-synthesis, there is preliminary agreement that quality assessments of individual studies should be
made before synthesis to screen out poor-quality studies1.
A/B High/Good quality is used for single studies and meta-syntheses2.

The report discusses efforts to enhance or evaluate the quality of the data and the overall inquiry in
sufficient detail; and it describes the specific techniques used to enhance the quality of the inquiry.
Evidence of some or all of the following is found in the report:

• Transparency: Describes how information was documented to justify decisions, how data were
reviewed by others, and how themes and categories were formulated.

• Diligence: Reads and rereads data to check interpretations; seeks opportunity to find multiple
sources to corroborate evidence.

• Verification: The process of checking, confirming, and ensuring methodologic coherence.
• Self-reflection and scrutiny: Being continuously aware of how a researcher’s experiences,

background, or prejudices might shape and bias analysis and interpretations.
• Participant-driven inquiry: Participants shape the scope and breadth of questions; analysis and

interpretation give voice to those who participated.
• Insightful interpretation: Data and knowledge are linked in meaningful ways to relevant literature.

C Low quality studies contribute little to the ov