Linked Life Data

2362054

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/2362054

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
2
pubmed:dateCreated
1990-8-6
pubmed:abstractText
This article summarizes standards relating to sampling methodology, identifies deviations from these standards in research studies reported in selected clinical nursing journals, and provides suggestions for improving sampling methods to enhance the applicability of research for nursing practice. A random sample of 30 research reports published in 1986 in five clinical nursing journals was examined. Nearly 97 per cent of the published studies contained at least one major deficiency in sampling methodology. More than two thirds failed to describe the sampling frame, sample size, or number of refusals, withdrawals, and/or cases lost. Thirteen per cent did not report sampling methods. More than half made generalizations that were inappropriate for the sampling method used; 43 per cent did not acknowledge any limitations of their sample. Sample sizes were small, and statistical power to detect significant differences was low. These deficiencies in sampling procedures could detract from the value of the research that nurses are encouraged to use as a basis for practice. This article provides specific recommendations for remedying these deficiencies to help ensure the scientific merit of the research published for nursing practice.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:issn
8755-7223
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
6
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
76-85
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:articleTitle
Evaluation of sampling methods in research reported in selected clinical nursing journals: implications for nursing practice.
pubmed:affiliation
School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article