Critique of a Quantitative Research Study

Introduction

Effects of a Comprehensive Educational Group Intervention in Older Women with Cognitive Complaints: A Randomized Controlled Trial by Hoogenhout, de Groot, Van der Elst, and Jolles (2012) is a quantitative article that used a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a new educational intervention program. The study used experimental and waiting-list control conditions in a sample of 50 women aged 60-75 years who reported normal age-related cognitive complaints. Based on the study, Hoogenhout et al. (2012) established that the new comprehensive educational group intervention reduced negative emotional reactions toward cognitive functioning, which seemed a prerequisite for improved subjective cognitive and well-being. Hence, it could potentially contribute to the well-being of an important and large group of older adults. However, it is essential to determine the value of this conclusion for practice. Thus, this paper seeks to critic the article using the Rapid Critical Appraisal Questions for Randomized Controlled Trials.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Validity of the Study

The study randomly assigned the subjects to the experimental and waiting-list control groups. In particular, Hoogenhout et al. (2012, pg. 136) stated that the people who were willing to participate were randomly assigned to an experimental or waiting-list control condition. A computer did randomization and allocation, which concealed the random assignment form the people who were first enrolling subjects into the study. However, although all the participants received an individual intake interview and the assessors were not involved in the study's interventions, the study lacked blindness of participants and trainers (Hoogenhout et al., 2012, pg. 141).

Often, not all among the randomly assigned participants completed the study (Melnyk, 2016). Nevertheless, the study gives reasons to explain why the subjects did not complete the study. In particular, Hoogenhout et al. (2012, pg. 139-140) recorded that six participants in the experimental group decided to end their participation prematurely due to logistic problems (n = 3), health-related problems (n = 2), or lack of interest (n = 1). Similarly, four subjects in the waiting-list control group terminated their participation because of health-related problems (n =3) and lack of interest (n = 1).

Based on the constructs of the study, sufficient time had passed to evaluate the outcome adequately. In essence, the researchers conducted the follow-up assessments long enough, seven weeks, to study the effects of the new educational intervention program fully. Similarly, the assessments analyzed all the subjects in the groups to which they were randomly assigned. That is 24 participants on the experimental and 26 respondents in the waiting-list control groups (Hoogenhout et al., 2012, pg. 140). According to Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2015), the only difference between the experimental and control groups should be the study intervention, which shows the appropriateness of the control group. Based on this, the waiting-list control group in the study was appropriate because their follow-up assessment was immediately after the intervention.

After an intervention, researchers must measure the study outcomes to determine the usefulness of the results (Melnyk, GallagherFord, Long, & FineoutOverholt, 2014). The instruments used must be valid and reliable. Hoogenhout et al. (2012, pg. 137-139) used various instruments in the study namely the Maastricht Metacognition Inventory (MMI), the memory Quotient (MQ), the Executive Functioning and Speed Quotient (ESQ), and the Psychological Well-being Quotient (PWQ). These instruments were valid and reliable to measure the clinical variable characteristics.

Finally, regarding subject features, there were no group differences in demographic and baseline clinical variables characteristics. In particular, all the subjects were healthy older women with age-related cognitive complaints (Hoogenhout et al., 2012, pg. 141). Based on these methods, the study results are valid.

Reliability of Results

The reported treatment effect size differed among the variables. For example, relating to the cognitive functioning, the effect size estimates were interpreted as large (Cliff's d = 0.473) while relating to objective memory, the effect size was medium (Cliff's d = 237). The study used a level of significance of 0.01 to adjust for multiple comparisons. However, since the study population was low, it did not show statistical significance. Notwithstanding, Melnyk, and Fineout-Overholt (2015) argue that statistically significant and clinically meaningful differences are not always equivalent. The precision of the measurement in this study is adequate and the results reliable despite the small sample size.

Applicability of Results

The study measured all the important outcomes namely metacognitive functioning, cognitive performance, and psychological well-being. The results presented in the study are of a randomized controlled trial, an approach that can allow the researcher to obtain adequate information on the treatment. One advantage of this intervention is that it offers an opportunity for low-level treatment. Notably, this makes it feasible in my clinical setting. My patients and their families expect that treatment will improve their psychological well-being.

Conclusion

To conclude, the article, Effects of a Comprehensive Educational Group Intervention in Older Women with Cognitive Complaints: A Randomized Controlled Trial by Hoogenhout et al. (2012) on the effectiveness of the new educational intervention program is valid, reliable, and applicable. However, it is likely that its reliability can increase with a bigger sample size.

References

Hoogenhout, E. M., de Groot, R. H., Van der Elst, W., & Jolles, J. (2012). Effects of a comprehensive educational group intervention in older women with cognitive complaints: a randomized controlled trial. Aging & mental health, 16(2), 135-144. DOI: org/10.1080/13607863.2011.598846

Melnyk, B. M. (2016). An Urgent Call to Action for Nurse Leaders to Establish Sustainable EvidenceBased Practice Cultures and Implement EvidenceBased Interventions to Improve Healthcare Quality. Worldviews on EvidenceBased Nursing, 13(1), 3-5. DOI: org/10.1111/wvn.12150

Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2015). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare. 2rd Edition.

Melnyk, B. M., GallagherFord, L., Long, L. E., & FineoutOverholt, E. (2014). The establishment of evidencebased practice competencies for practicing registered nurses and advanced practice nurses in realworld clinical settings: Proficiencies to improve healthcare quality, reliability, patient outcomes, and costs. Worldviews on EvidenceBased Nursing, 11(1), 5-15. DOI: org/10.1111/wvn.12021