Experimental and One Non-Experimental Almanda,

¶ … Experimental and One Non-Experimental

Almanda, Pam, Carafoli, Karen, Flattery, John, French, Douglas and McNamara, Mary (2004). Improving the retention rate of newly graduated nurses. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development, 20(6), 268-273. (Non-experimental)

Blanzola, Cheryl, Lindeman, Roslyn and King, Major (2004). Nurse internship pathway to clinical comfort, confidence and competency. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development, Insert Vol & No. As above, 27-37. (Experimental)

Fairly critiquing an investigator's research endeavor is a task that must be taken seriously. Although it is quite easy to have an opinion of another's research it is something quite different to be able to evaluate the research activity in terms of topic specificity and soundness, intent or purpose, data analysis, and informational importance. When embarking upon a critical analysis of another's work the reviewer must, at all times, adhere to the basic principle of prudent evaluation; namely, evaluating the structure of the research upon which scientific conclusion are drawn. More specifically, the function of a research report (article) is to inform readers about the problem being investigated, the methods used to solve the problem, the results of the investigation, and the conclusions being inferred from the results. The printed manuscript is to inform the reader, as expeditiously as possible, what was done, the outcome of the doing, and the investigator's conclusion. The focus of this report will be on the critical evaluation of two nursing articles, one experimental and one non-experimental, with respect to the soundness of the stated research question and the research methodology employed to deliver the appropriate answer or answers to the stated question.

Experimental research, broadly defined, is a controlled group investigative endeavor or procedure that seeks to determine whether or not a certain treatment (independent) variable or condition will serve to affect the outcome of some measurement (dependent) variable. As such the research investigator is obliged to set for a research question that asks whether or not the application of a treatment will affect the outcome of a selected measurement variable. The stated research purpose of the Blanzola investigation was to determine whether or not a nursing internship program at a U.S. naval hospital would effect the core competencies of those nurses who attended the internship program vs. those nurse who did not attend. Although the purpose of the study was clearly defined the authors failed to format the research purpose into a well-defined research question followed by a properly stated testable null hypothesis. Blanzola and her two co-authors, in following best-fit research protocol should have stated the research question as follows: To what extent will participation in a naval hospital internship program affect the level of core competency attainment by those nurses who participate in the internship program verses those who do not participate? What is important to remember is that in an experimental investigation the research investigator is not permitted to bias the research question by stating any directional course; i.e., there will be an increase in core competency attainment or there will not be an increase. The same protocol must be followed when stating the testable hypothesis. Unfortunately the hypothesis stated by Blanzola and her two co-authors set forth a hypothesis that was not only in null form but one that predicted an increase in core competency attainment visa via internship participation. The reason a direction is not suitable for experimental research lies in the area of attempting to explain that which did not happened. Attempting to give reason as to why a treatment (nursing