"Nursing Preceptors Speak Out: An Empirical Study" - Article Analysis Essay

Quantitative Critique

The ability to critique a quantitative article is a necessary skill for all researchers and practitioners including nurses. This paper is a review of the article titled "Nursing preceptors speak out: an empirical study" by Kalischuk, Vandenberg, and Awosoga. This paper will offer a critique of the various components of the research study among them: the title of the article, abstract, introduction, methodology, discussion and strength and weaknesses of the article.

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

Save 25%

Title

The title of an article is usually the first thing a reader looks at (Grove, Burns & Gray, 2013). The title of this article effectively highlights the concept that is going to be addressed. This title does manage to show what the article is all about. Furthermore, from the article one can be able to determine the qualitative approach used as it states the method used which is an empirical study. Therefore to me, the title does represent the overall review.

Abstract

The purpose of an abstract is to describe a substantial work in a robust, short and self-contained manner (Grove, Burns & Gray, 2013). The abstract of this article is well written in that it highlights everything that the text is going to talk about. By reading it, one can understand what the article is about as it summarizes every critical aspect to be discussed. Moreover, it describes the purpose of the study, explains the sample and contains keywords.

Introduction

Statement of the Problem: The problem is studied in the study is noticeably stated. The authors efficiently discuss the background of their research which highlights the importance of preceptors in the nursing profession. The problem and the research in this article are necessary for the nursing professional since preceptors are critical to the growth of any healthcare institution (Strouse & Haan, 2016).

Purpose: The purpose of this article is clear and also relevant to the field of nursing. The study aimed to examine the view of preceptors regarding commitment, challenges, support, rewards and benefits they face. Preceptors are important professions in nursing as they help students to apply skills they have learned practically (Strouse & Haan, 2016).

Literature Review: Current knowledge in this article has been described. The authors have included knowledge from previous studies, for instance, they have referenced work done previously on the effects of Student-preceptor conflict. The references used in literature review are not current, but the authors have offered a critique of the once they have selected. They date from 1995 to 2007.

Conceptual/Theoretical Framework: The most identifiable framework in this research is a conceptual framework. The framework used by the researchers is relatively broad, and they are no particular theory that can be compared to their focus throughout the study. However, the study does have several variables such as commitment, challenges, support, rewards, and benefits relating to how preceptors view them.

Hypotheses: The hypothesis in this research is a non-directional hypothesis. This is so because the author's state argues that there is a relationship that among the variables (but they do not give the direction of the relationship. The main concern of the authors is how the preceptors view these variables.

Methodology

Research Design: The study utilized both correlational and descriptive design. For the questionnaire, the authors adopted the six-part questionnaire where they would put different items or variables on each. This design was appropriate since it could accommodate the hypothesis or their main aim of the study. Nevertheless, the framework they used enabled them to link all variables and observe how they affect the preceptors.

Variables: The variables in the methodology are defined. Each variable (commitment, challenges, support, rewards, and benefits) is tested about how preceptors view them thereby making them congruent with the conceptual definition.

Sample and Setting: A questionnaire was given to experienced preceptors (331 of them) in five years. Of the 331 preceptors, 129 returned responded to the questionnaire sent to them, and this highlights the kind of workload they usually have. Education, age, gender, employment status and area of nursing were the criteria used when sampling. These type of sampling was excellent for considering the nature of the study and the individuals being studied.

Data Collection: The study does give a clear explanation on how it collected its data. It used a program known as "Nursing Education in Southwestern Alberta (NESA)" where it got the most suited participants. Data collection was done appropriately considering that the study discussed various ethical considerations.

Measurement: The selected measurement of this study does have reliability and viability. The authors conducted prior experiments just to see if their method would work and this eliminated any chance of an error.

Results

Data analysis: The article conducted an efficient data analysis especially considering the large numbers of the participants. All outliers were identified but were not entirely removed from the report. Furthermore, the "Kendall Tau b correlation coefficient" was used to enhance accuracy which is something key to any research. Overall, data analysis was done appropriately where every variable was considered.

Statistical Analysis: Proper statistics were used in this article. To measure reliability, the research used Cronbach's alpha which showed that the results had high inter-item reliability. Table used were also appropriate as they helped in the statistical analysis of data.

Findings: Findings related to Preceptor's perception of "benefits, rewards, and recognition" were well discussed. Furthermore, the article used tables and figures which are well labeled and understandable.

Discussion

Interpretation and implications: The article rightly discusses its shortcomings by dedicating a subtopic addressing its weaknesses. The conclusions made by the authors appropriately fit the results from data analysis as they use evidence from their research to support this conclusion. The study did not give any particular implications for nursing practice, education, research or science but it did provide credible recommendations for the future research which is also vital.

Evaluation

The strength of this study is that it uses an empirical approach to find out how nursing preceptors see various factors surrounding them. Additionally, this study has a reliable data analysis, its conclusion fits well the results from data analysis, and it also does ethical consideration before beginning. The only weakness is the sampling method it uses which makes it hard to determine the background of the preceptors.

Nevertheless, the study is a success since it manages to offer new insight on the issues that preceptor nurses go through. These nurses experience too much pressure due to the nature of their work and as the study suggests it is important to consider their opinion concerning how their lives can be improved.

References

Grove, S., Burns, N., & Gray, J. (2013). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (7th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders.

Kalischuk, R. G., Vandenberg, H., & Awosoga, O. (2013). Nursing preceptors speak out: an empirical study. Journal of Professional Nursing, 29(1), 30-38.

Strouse, S. M., & Haan, E. M. (2016). We Don't Miter the Sheets on the Bed: Understanding the Preceptor Role in Nursing Enculturation.