Homework

1a. Type of research?
A method, posttest –only control group design.
b. How do you know the true?
Since this study was part of an improvement procedure, compared to the true pre-posttest research design, a pre-test was not necessary because the participants had already been exposed to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) tool during the pilot test.
2. Critiquing Article of Reference.
In reference to the attached article, a detailed critique of the methods uses, sampling, research instruments, and analysis of data is imperative. This study can be regarded as merely explorative because it is part of a hospital’s advancements. The AHRQ tool was implemented and an audit to determine its effect on the hospital’s communication processes was determined. The approach taken is meant to be an experimental approach, but the study at hand does not meet the requirements of such an approach. For instance, some parameters are usually controlled to avoid the influence of confounding factors, but in this case, the individual participating in the workshop did not have similar baseline characteristics. It was not clear whether the participants had taken part in an earlier training program that had been provided two years before.
Research studies often target a single type of participants: the target population, but in this study, it did not have a target group. Instead, it focused on the stakeholders about the AHRQ tool. Despite the fact that some statistics were applied, they did not test the main hypothesis, to determine the difference in outcomes before and after the adoption of the AHRQ and implementation of the training program.

Apparently, only descriptive statistics were used, which cannot tell much about the significant difference between groups or at different times in reference to the study at hand. Four auditors administered an assessment questionnaire and conducted environmental audits, but the study does not indicate how these auditors resolved their differences.
A sound scientific method is deemed to apply a sound methodological approach, which is completely missing in the article of reference. On a different note, the research study is a good case study because it focuses on the activities of a single healthcare facility. The sample size is small, and it is clear that the tool was designed for pharmacists. Therefore, the reason why no other healthcare providers were included in the evaluation. The manner in which data was obtained is not valid because only a single pharmacists of the three tiers was selected and data compared to that a control pharmacist from the general pool. Comparison therefore was based on two pharmacists at a time who were matched in reference to relevant store demographics, such as location and Medicaid prescription volume.
The results from this study cannot be generalized, but they can be used as a basis for conducting future studies. The validity and reliability of the research instruments were not indicated. On a different note, both qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated during reporting, and the qualitative data is shown to provide ideal justifications for the reported quantitative date. Thus, this information is useful in developing hypotheses that should be tested using more credible methodologies.
3. Critiquing Systematic Reviews
In the event of systematic reviews, a rather different approach would be used because the focus is on the credibility of the research articles selected the databases used in the search. However, other parameters, such as solving variation in the opinion of the reviewers and rationale for not applying statistical approaches. In reference to these reviews, the article of reference would not qualify for inclusion.