Abstract
This paper aims to provide critical analysis of published research and show that it is possible to appraise such studies by using an outlined critiquing framework. The article selected for critique is The DNP Degree: Are We Producing the Graduates We Intended? Mainly because it uses qualitative research methods to assess the impact of DNP degrees in the nursing industry. In this case, DNP is used to mean a Doctor of Nursing Practice.
Background and Significance
The research article's title provides a clear description of the study, its scope, and purpose. It suggests a relationship between variables that are used to support one primary thesis. That is whether the graduates produced are the ones intended. Current nomenclature in the medical field has been used in compliance with qualitative standards. A majority of titles are generally in the form of a phrase, but this one is in the form of a question to engage the readers’ interest. The introduction is a critical part of the study because it provides readers with a roadmap of what to expect when reading the paper. In the qualitative research, the author has done an excellent job introducing the research issue to the audience. A concise overview of the problem has been outlined with a brief description of how previous researches have attempted to address the issue.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Literature Review
Good research background is supposed to provide a brief outline of relevant studies that have been conducted in the past ( Polit & Beck, 2020 ). A brief discussion of the major theories surrounding the research topic should be highlighted alongside the research problem models. One also needs to demonstrate how the research question relates to what has been done in the research area ( Murphy, Staffileno & Foreman, 2018 ). The objectives of the study are clearly outlined in the abstract of the paper. The methodology used, results, discussion, and conclusion are also laid out clearly.
The purpose of the study is clearly defined from the research question. The authors intend to explore whether the existing degree programs in nursing practice are efficient in producing professional medical practitioners or if a new degree should be adopted. The adequacy of the education system is in question because some degrees in learning institutions lack the content to provide the best teaching and learning practices and access to practical curriculum development skills ( Bowie, DeSocio & Swanson, 2019 ).
A concise overview of DNP has been explored from the time it was initiated and the reasons for its introduction. In many cases, value is not added to nurses' proficiency because current practice expertise and leadership skills are not nurtured. As a result, these nurses have a hard time transitioning into academia and thriving in academic leadership roles. The introduction provides an overview of why nurses need to understand and take complementary roles and skills as interprofessional health teams for successful collaboration and improvement of health status in complex health care settings. Up to this point, there is a clear understanding of the research question and its implications as far as DNP is concerned.
Methods
Design
Cross-sectional studies were used to collect information on a study population at a point in time to examine the relationship between DNP degree courses and the proficiency of nurses produced by the current education system ( Bowie, DeSocio & Swanson, 2019 ). Through conventional content analysis, the presence of these skills, qualities, and roles was determined, quantified, and analyzed to develop a relationship between the variables of the study, after which inferences were made. The method is very useful because it presents the magnitude of the problem in question and, as such, serves as a valuable tool in planning and addressing the issue.
Sample
Ten DNP graduates and nine supervisors were selected as a representative sample of the population under study ( Bowie, DeSocio & Swanson, 2019 ). All of them held different positions in medical institutions and had varying levels of experience in the industry. However, the sample size was not sufficiently large to estimate the prevalence of the conditions of interest with satisfactory precision. A larger study group would have provided better results by eliminating the possibility of chance to the equation. Selection bias is a significant problem in the study based on the study sample, and as such, proper randomization was not achieved. Therefore, the results from the research could have not been the correct representation of the issue under investigation. The authors did not establish inclusion and exclusion criteria during the design stage. The identification of results from the data collected on exposures and outcomes could have been easily flawed. In such a study, the data collection method primarily relied on a practitioner’s access to the DNP course and the study setting.
Ethics
The sample was purposefully selected from an estimated population of DNP graduates working across various institutions as a means of obtaining reasonable geographic equality and trust spread ( Bowie, DeSocio & Swanson, 2019 ). The researchers obtained written consent from all the participants meaning sufficient information was provided to each member. Their decision to take part in the study was, therefore, voluntary. When this kind of openness, autonomy, trust, and confidence was created, and any incorrect assumptions were cleared throughout the process.
Language of the narrative
The language of the paper's narrative is not simple, but it has some aspects of clarity. The authors have explained complex concepts in the report's main text, that is, the executive summary and the body. A majority of readers only read the executive summary or abstract, and as such, this section should be free of any complex terminologies. If researchers intend to communicate their findings to other researchers' audience, they can safely assume that they are familiar with the concepts ( Murphy, Staffileno & Foreman , 2018 ). However, suppose the aim is to communicate results to policymakers, practitioners, and other readers who may not be acquainted with research concepts. They should use simple language or explain the terminologies at the beginning of the research in the keywords section.
In this study, the language used was inefficient because readers are forced to decipher the jargon used by guessing its meaning. The authors assumed the audience has sufficient background knowledge on the issue, but this was not the case. As such, they may decipher the information incorrectly and get the wrong meaning, or decide not to read it at all. The use of such words and credentials not explained at the beginning gets in the way of disseminating accurate findings. As Polit & Beck (2020) note, it is very important for the body of a report to contain complex terminologies because for technical papers, these must be present. But they must be used with caution because they contribute to the readability of the document.
Study Procedure
During the research, defining the setting, that is, the physical, cultural, or social site where the study will be conducted, is a critical component of the methodology ( Polit & Beck, 2020 ). Since recruitment was done through professional networking, it is evident that no physical contact was established during this time. The first setting used in the study was through online platforms over the phone and via emails. Those DNPs interested in participating received an email that described the study, invited them for participation, and set up an appointment ( Bowie, DeSocio & Swanson, 2019 ). The researchers note that graduates were asked to provide their feedback on the questions, but the setting was not mentioned. Both graduates and supervisors took part in the study after agreements to be interviewed were sought. It does not become clear where the interviews took place, and as such, this could have influenced the participants' responses. In some cases, people give incorrect answers because they are not comfortable disclosing information when in the selected location.
Instruments
Although it was clear two of the authors carried out the interview, one could not establish whether they also affected participants' responses. These aspects significantly affect the viability of the findings. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews provided a good measure of non-verbal cues from the participants. Predetermined questions were asked using the research topic as a guiding tool. However, a list of these questions was not provided, thus making it unclear on what parameters the researchers wished to investigate. Three themes were covered in the methodology section. The interviewees gave their responses regarding these aspects, and this information was recorded. It was, however, not clear what type of answers the researchers were looking for. There was no grading scale to categorize the data from the DNP graduates, and as such, this affects the viability of the study. The length of time taken to interview one participant was also not indicated in the study. Moreover, one could not determine whether the interviews were done in groups or individually. Based on these factors, it becomes difficult to determine the duration of the whole research.
Data Recording and analysis
Data recording procedures are well highlighted in the report. As Murphy, Staffileno & Foreman (2018) note, records are vital because their content serves as evidence of communication and aid in decision making. It is imperative to understand that the experimental design of a study determines the type of data to be collected during a field study. The team met and discussed the best codes to use, depending on the gathered text. Individual transcripts were used to build the themes under investigation. However, lack of categorical analysis in the analysis part makes it difficult to make meaning of the collected information.
For ease of reading, the researchers should have provided a correlation between the dependent and independent variables. Lack of selective use of categories in the research questions whether the researchers made the right decisions during the methodology and analysis sections ( Polit & Beck, 2020 ). However, the report does place the information presented in the context of what other scholars have already established about the phenomenon under study. In the limitation section, the researchers have stated that the research could have been biased because the post-master’s degree was developed at their university ( Bowie, DeSocio & Swanson, 2019 ). Other limitations, such as the participants' education level, are also highlighted as they could have flawed the selection process.
Findings
There is no logical manner of consistency in the way the findings are presented. Moreover, the report lacked tables to categorize where each response belonged, and as such, the research lacked visual representation ( Polit & Beck, 2020 ). The researchers could have done a better job connecting the tables to a figure with the investigated elements so that the audience can link the two more explicitly.
The results section was not comprehensive and because it forces the audience to try and link the findings to the research question. Even though narratives were provided, exemplars from the current practice were not well analyzed for presentation. The source populations were well described, and it was mentioned the participants were a presentation of individuals who have gone through DNP degree courses. As mentioned earlier, the study setting was not highlighted, and as such, the relevance of the participant’s responses comes to question. In addition to this, all critical outcomes were not considered in the study. The resources used, including costs and time, were not outlined in the paper. As such, it becomes difficult for other researchers to estimate the cost of replicating such a procedure. This affects the viability of the findings because if other people cannot replicate the procedure, it is not credible. However, the findings are aligned to that of previous studies showing that some degree courses are not adequate tools to equip nurses in the real world. The results are valid and the methods used for extraction are viable thus providing evidence that explains the phenomenon in question.
Author and reference analysis
Information about the main author Bonnie H Bowie adds credibility to the research based on the accreditations and achievements as a researcher. She is the associate professor at Seattle University. She also served as the chair of the community Psychosocial Nursing Department for five years. Currently, Bonnie is the track leader for the DNP program, having graduated from the University of Washington with a Ph.D. in Nursing. Her educational and work experience in the discussion field makes the arguments she presents reliable and applicable in the healthcare system.
References
Whereas all the books, journals, and materials used in the study were accurately referenced, none of them allowed were cited in the text. Credit was not given to the sources. It becomes challenging for the audience to differentiate information borrowed from other sources and that from the research itself ( Polit & Beck, 2020 ). The books and articles have been referenced at the end, but the researchers failed to include the most important part when using other people’s work. Therefore, the sources are hard to trace, and as such, one cannot learn more about the ideas included in the paper.
References
Bowie, B. H., DeSocio, J., & Swanson, K. M. (2019). The DNP degree: are we producing the graduates we intended? JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration , 49 (5), 280-285.
Polit, D.F., & Beck, C.T. (2020). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Murphy, M.P., Staffileno, B.A., & Foreman, M. D. (2018). Research for advanced practice nurses: From evidence to practice (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing.
