NURS 8250/NURS 8250N: Advanced Theoretical and Scientific Perspectives in Nursing | Week 6

Theory is usually constructed to express a unique, unifying idea about a phenomenon that answers previously unanswered questions and provides new insights into the nature of the phenomenon. A theory attempts to establish a parsimonious, precise example, or model, of the real world or the world as it is experienced. Thus, theory is defined as a set of interrelated relational statements about a phenomenon that is useful for description, explanation, prediction and prescription or control.

—Walker and Avant, 2011, p. 193

In Week 5, you examined relationships between and among concepts related to your phenomenon of interest. Both frameworks and theories relate concepts together in a meaningful way, although as you explored at the beginning of this course, theories exist further along a continuum of describing, explaining, predicting, and controlling a phenomenon.

In this week’s Discussion, you examine more closely the distinctions between frameworks and theories. You search the literature related to your phenomenon of interest, analyze existing frameworks or theories, and evaluate each framework/theory for the purposes of your theoretical foundation. In the Assignment, you begin to write a partial draft of a paper describing your theoretical foundation for research, which is due by Day 7 of Week 7.

Learning Objectives – Framework/Theory Analysis and Evaluation NURS8250N

Students will:

• Distinguish frameworks from theories
• Analyze strengths of frameworks/theories
• Analyze weaknesses of frameworks/theories
• Evaluate the applicability of frameworks/theories to phenomena of interest
• Apply analytic methods to the development of theoretical foundations for research

Learning Resources

Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.

Required Readings

McEwin, M., & Wills, E. M. (2019). Theoretical basis for nursing (5th ed.) Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health.

• Chapter 5, “Theory Analysis and Evaluation” (pp. 94-111)
• Chapter 7, “Grand Nursing Theories Based on Human Needs” (pp. 131-156)

Chapter 5 provides valuable information for the evaluation of frameworks and theories. As you prepare for this week’s Discussion, focus especially on “Theory Analysis and Evaluation: Fawcett” (pp. 99-100) and “Theory Description and Critique: Chinn and Krammer” (pp. 100-101), which relate to this week’s Discussion. As you read the “Betty Neuman: The Neuman Systems Model” section of Chapter 7 (pp. 150-155), consider how NSM serves as an exemplar for nursing frameworks.

Walker, L. O., & Avant, K. C. (2011). Strategies for theory construction in nursing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

• Chapter 6, “Theory Derivation” (pp. 94–106)
• Chapter 9, “Theory Synthesis” (pp. 140–154)
• Chapter 12, “Theory Analysis” (pp. 193–211)
• Chapter 13, “Concept, Statement, and Theory Testing” (pp. 222–226)

Chapman, R., Styles, I., Perry, L., & Combs, S. (2010). Nurses’ experience of adjusting to workplace violence: A theory of adaptation. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 19(3), 186–194.

The authors refined Taylor’s theory of cognitive adaptation to examine nurses’ experiences of workplace violence.

Nurses’ Experience of Adjusting to Workplace Violence: A Theory of Adaptation by Chapman, R.; Styles, I.; Perry, L.; Combs, S., in International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, Vol. 19/Issue 3. Copyright 2010 by John Wiley & Sons – Journals. Reprinted by permission of John Wiley & Sons – Journals via the Copyright Clearance Center.

Dumchin, M. (2010). Redefining the future of perioperative nursing education: A conceptual framework. AORN Journal, 92(1), 87–100.

The author proposes a conceptual framework derived from multiple existing frameworks.

Eaton, P. M., Davis, B. L., Hammond, P. V., Condon, E. H., & McGee, Z. T. (2011). Coping strategies of family members of hospitalized psychiatric patients. Nursing Research & Practice, 1–12.

The authors use Neuman Systems Model as a framework for their study of coping strategies.

Kilpatrick, K., Lavoie-Tremblay, M., Lamothe, L., Ritchie, J. A., & Doran, D. (2013). Conceptual framework of acute care nurse practitioner role enactment, boundary work, and perceptions of team effectiveness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(1), 205–217.

The authors present a new conceptual framework that incorporates Donabedian’s model of quality care (i.e., structures, processes, and outcomes).

Kolcaba, K., Tilton, C., & Drouin, C. (2006). Comfort theory: A unifying framework to enhance the practice environment. Journal of Nursing Administration, 36(11), 538–544.

In this seminal article, the authors describe the use of Comfort Theory by a not-for-profit New England hospital to provide a coherent and consistent pattern for enhancing care and promoting professional practice when applying for Magnet Recognition Status.

Reay, G., & Rankin, J. A. (2013). The application of theory to triage decision-making. International Emergency Nursing, 21(2), 97–102.

Watson, J. (2010). Florence Nightingale and the enduring legacy of transpersonal human caring-healing. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 28(1), 107–108.

Optional Resources

MacPhee, M., Skelton-Green, J., Bouthillette, F., & Suryaprakash, N. (2012). An empowerment framework for nursing leadership development: Supporting evidence. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(1), 159–169.

Discussion: Analysis and Evaluation of Frameworks and Theories

Theory analysis is particularly helpful in research because it provides a clear idea of the form and structure of the theory in addition to the relevance of content, and inconsistencies and gaps present. The ‘missing links’ or inconsistencies are fruitful sources of new research ideas. They also point to the next hypotheses that need to be tested.

—Walker and Avant, 2011, p. 206

Nurse scientists often find that examining the literature is a productive way to see how existing frameworks and theories have been applied in other research studies. By engaging in this process, they may gain insights about a particular framework or theory, be able to identify gaps in research, or uncover new questions they are eager to explore.

In this Discussion, you analyze existing frameworks/theories using the procedure proposed by Walker and Avant. Your analysis should provide an objective understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each framework or theory. This, in turn, should enable you to evaluate whether the framework/theory is useful for the purposes of your theoretical foundation for a program of research.

To prepare

• Review the information that Dr. Hathaway presents in the Week 1 media program, “Theoretical Foundation for Research,” regarding the phases of theory development and the similarities and differences between frameworks and theories.
• Search the literature and identify two frameworks/theories that may be useful for investigating your phenomenon of interest.
• Review the procedure for theory analysis presented in Chapter 12 of Walker and Avant (2011). Apply these steps to each framework/theory you have selected and identify the strengths and weaknesses of each framework/theory. Determine whether additional development or refinement is needed (i.e., for each framework, identify which aspects would require further research in order for it to meet the requirements of a theory).
• Evaluate the value of each framework/theory for addressing your phenomenon. Determine which framework/theory has the most potential for use as part of your theoretical foundation of your research.
• Think about any questions you have related to theory analysis and evaluation.

By Day 3

Post a description of the two frameworks/theories you analyzed and evaluated, and explain why each is considered either a framework or a theory. For framework(s) you have selected, explain which aspects would require further research to meet the requirements of a theory. Explain why one has the most potential for use in your theoretical foundation for research, noting its strengths and weaknesses. Also pose any questions that have arisen through your examination of frameworks/theories.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

By Day 6 Framework/Theory Analysis and Evaluation NURS8250N

Respond to at least two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:

• Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
• Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
• Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
• Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence. Framework/Theory Analysis and Evaluation NURS8250N

 

MORE INFO 

Analysis and Evaluation of Frameworks and Theories

Introduction

Systematic reviews are a useful tool in evaluating and assessing the evidence. They can help to identify gaps in existing knowledge, provide evidence-based recommendations, and identify areas of future research. Systematic reviews are also used to evaluate existing frameworks and theories. In this blog post we’ll discuss how these techniques can be applied when conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses (we’ll refer to these as “evidence synthesis”).

Systematic review

Systematic reviews are a useful tool in evaluating and assessing the evidence. They are used to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions and can be used to assess the effectiveness of interventions. The process involves selecting papers for inclusion in a review based on their relevance, quality, methodology and validity.[1]

Systematic reviews allow researchers to search across multiple studies using databases such as PubMed or Cochrane Library.[2] This allows them to identify any gaps in research or knowledge related to their topic area.[3]

Meta-analysis

Meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the results of multiple studies. It can be used to assess the effectiveness of interventions and determine whether there is an association between variables.

In this section, we will review how meta-analyses are conducted and how they can be used to evaluate and assess evidence based on theory or research findings.

Systematic review of meta-analysis findings

A meta-analysis is a statistical method used to summarize the results of multiple studies. It can be used to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to make an inference about a particular question. A meta-analysis uses data from multiple sources, but it does not include all of these sources’ data in one analysis. Instead, only those studies that are relevant for answering your research question are included in your analysis; this helps reduce errors and biases due to selection bias or publication bias (see below).

Meta-analyses have been described as: “a systematic review that combines the results from several different studies,”1 or “an analytical approach for synthesizing previous research.”2 They are useful because they provide a summary overview of existing information on an issue such as weight loss interventions among adults with obesity or reducing healthcare costs through medication adherence programs among elderly patients with chronic disease

Systematic review of systematic reviews’ conclusions

Systematic reviews of systematic reviews are a useful tool in evaluating and assessing the evidence. They can be used to identify which topics should be covered in more depth, and also to identify gaps in our knowledge. The results of this process will help us make informed decisions about what we need to do next—and how we should go about it.

In this example, you’ll look at two types of systematic review: those based on pre-existing frameworks or theories (e.g., Cochrane Collaboration’s PRISMA guidelines), and those that have been developed specifically for your topic area:

• Systematic Reviews of Systematic Reviews (SROSRs) – These are like traditional SRs but they use methods that support thoroughness over speed; they’re often published alongside original research articles where possible so readers can see both sides equally clearly

Takeaway:Systemic reviews are a useful tool in evaluating and assessing the evidence.

Systematic reviews are a useful tool in evaluating and assessing the evidence. They can be used to synthesize and summarize research, help us to understand the effectiveness of interventions, and inform policy decisions.

Systematic reviews are more than just an analysis of studies—they also include an evaluation of their quality (e.g., whether they were randomized controlled trials or observational studies). The overall quality score is based on three criteria: risk of bias; sequence generation; and handling missing data. A higher-quality review will have high scores across all three criteria because it demonstrates that each study has been thoroughly reviewed by experts who have considered potential biases before conducting them or collecting data from participants who may not have had full access to relevant information during their participation in studies being reviewed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, systematic reviews are a useful tool in evaluating and assessing the evidence. With the help of these reviews, clinicians can make more informed treatment decisions, which will ultimately benefit their patients.