The Experiences of Nursing Students with Dyslexia - Essay Example

The Experiences of Nursing Students with Dyslexia Introduction A critique, contrary to popular belief, is supposed to highlight some of the assumptions, weaknesses and strengths of some research conduct. This is as opposed to pointing out only what is wrong with a particular piece of work. This is such that, within the critique, the credibility of authors is discussed, alongside some of the research practices they undertook. This essay critiques the work done by Ridley (2011) on “The Experiences of Nursing Students with Dyslexia.” The framework used towards this purpose is one adopted from Caldwell, Henshaw and Taylor’s (2005) “Developing a framework for Critiquing Health Research.” Some of the issues to be addressed within the critique are ethical issues, the effectiveness and appropriateness of the research methodology applied in the study and the extent to which the discussion and conclusion are comprehensive. The work under study discussed the plight of nursing students that live with dyslexia. As one of the preliminary signs of believability of the report (Ryan, Coughlan & Cronin, 2007), it is well laid out, avoiding any unnecessary jargon, applying the use of good grammar and hence very believable to the reader. The title of the work is fully reflective of the content of the report, it displays an element of conciseness, clarity and accuracy, given the content of the paper. The author of this report is credible, which is another requirement for believability (Gomm, 2004). Caroline Ridley is an expert in her field, given that she is a Senior Lecturer on adult nursing at the School of Health, Psychology and Social Care, at the Manchester Metropolitan University. The abstract of the paper accurately outlines the key components of the report, bringing out the aim of the study, the methodology used, the findings of the study and finally the conclusion of the study. Such are the components of a good abstract (Ellis, 2013). Ridley’s (2011) work on pre-registration nursing students is backed by a clearly outlined rationale for undertaking the research. The author points out that dyslexia is a prevalent disability among the student population, which has warranted studies on the subject. She points out that there is limited research on healthcare practitioners that are suffering from dyslexia, despite the high rate of prevalence of these. The literature review conducted by the author is quite comprehensive. She applies a unique blend of old and recent literature on the topic, that is, by reviewing Shuler (1990) and Shallenberger (1993), and then going ahead to review a wide variety of more recently completed works such as that by Goode (2007) and Hartley et al. (2008). The literature review is satisfactory towards the philosophical underpinnings of the study (Ryan, Coughlan & Cronin, 2007), that is, it adequately presents some of the issues faced by nursing students with dyslexia. For example, according to Morris and Turnbull (2006), these students are subjected to attitudinal boundaries by other around them. Dale and Taylor (2001) point out effects such as frustration and low self-esteem among these dyslexic students. The literature review is able to amply fulfil its objectives of bringing out some of the issues that dyslexic medical practitioners have to contend with. Ridley (2011) gives the aim of her study as ‘to explore the experiences of pre-registration nursing students with dyslexia at one university.’ This aim is clearly stated, bringing important factors such as the student population under study and the factor under study (Kumar, 2010). The aim is consistent with the research question, which is to highlight the experiences of nursing students that have dyslexia. Ethically, the research is at par with the standards set for research (Polit & Beck, 2011). These standards require that participants are made fully aware of the nature of the study (Polit & Beck, 2011). In addition, the researcher has to guarantee the autonomy of the participants (Fossey et al., 2002) alongside protecting them from harm and obtaining ethical permission for the study (Kumar, 2010). In adherence to these standards, Ridley (2011) appreciates that not all students with dyslexia would like to disclose their identities to the university. The researcher applies the use of pseudonyms to protect the identities of the participants through the various stages of the study in order to uphold the confidentiality and dignity of participants. Apart from this, she is careful to obtain the written approval of the university’s ethical committee for the conducting of necessary interviews and for use of quotations in ensuing publications. Participation was purely on voluntary basis, as another means of applying ethical considerations to the study. The methodology applied by Ridley (2011) in her study suits the nature of her research. The methodology is a composition of the quantitative and qualitative aspects (Kumar, 2010). On the quantitative, the researcher chose to use phenomenological traditions. The rational for picking this method, according to her was that it was most instrumental in gaining an understanding of the backgrounds of the various interviewed students with dyslexia. To her, it was most appropriate because the questions were designed to gather information on the experiences of the participants across the board on diagnosis, support, disclosure and the difficulties. This design has been lauded for its capability to draw a picture of the experiences and views of research participants (Rees, 2001). The study was organized into semi-structured interviews. And topic guides availed to participants so as to ensure adequate preparation among them (Ryan, Coughlan & Cronin, 2007). The interviews lasted 60 minutes at most. Despite choosing an effective design, the author fails to clearly state an experimental hypothesis for the study; neither does she define the key variables that underpin the study. The population studied is identified. The sample frame consisted of 7 students, all of whom were formally diagnosed with dyslexia and had volunteered to participate. The sample frame is small. Given that the author states that there is a high incidence of dyslexic students, one would expect the sample frame to be bigger in order to be more representative of her claims (Lewith et al., 2003). The method by which data was collected was indeed reliable. First, the questionnaire was designed to capture key issues in the lives of dyslexic students. In addition, the interviews were kept brief, preventing a situation whereby respondents would be fatigued ahead of completion of the interview (Ryan, Coughlan & Cronin, 2007). Thirdly, the interviews were conducted in private, allowing for a high degree of openness among participants (May, 2001) and hence accuracy of the information provided. Finally, the data collected was transcribed verbatim and examined for errors ahead of thematic analysis. Given the nature of the study, the method by which data was analysed was valid and reliable. The thematic network approach used was most suitable for this study (Cormack, 2000). The responses of the participants were divided based on the commonalities emerging, the individual experiences of the respondents, recurring ideas and feelings of respondents that bore links to the aim of the study. This painted a picture of key issues such as the individuality of dyslexia as a disability, dyslexia as a professional issue, living with and support for dyslexia. On the qualitative front, the philosophical background and the design of the study are defined adequately. As discussed, Ridley (2011) uses a theoretical perspective in the study to understand the lives of nursing students with dyslexia. her rational for picking this method is the fact that it is most accurate in highlighting the views and experiences of the participants. The questionnaire is designed in such a ways that highlights major concepts of diagnosis, disclosure of one’s state to the university and other people, the strengths and weaknesses emanating from diagnosis with dyslexia, support from those around the diagnosed student and achievements of the student in spite of their disabilities. The context of the study is a private and comfortable room. The researcher describes sampling as based on voluntarism by the participants and clearly states that the ample frame consists of seven respondents. The method by which data is collected is appropriate, based on the nature of the study, and so is the mode of data analysis (Blaxter et al., 2009). The results of the study are presented accurately and comprehensively. The findings are divided into comprehensive blocks following the responses of the participants. This is such that in the findings section the author discusses dyslexia as a defined disability, as a professional issue, living with dyslexia and support for dyslexia while incorporating the aspects measured by the questionnaire. The researcher concludes that nursing students have to live with fear following their disabilities. In addition, these students feel that in adherence to the requirements of full disclosure, they are obligated to tell their patients about their disabilities. In general, these students express concern over the fact that there is very little attention paid to nurses with dyslexia (Polit & Beck, 2011). These findings are comprehensive and dependable given that they can be placed in the context of what is already known about nurses with dyslexia and its negative effects in the learning environment (Parahoo, 2010), that is, according to the literature reviewed. Even though the sample frame used was small, the results of the study can be generalized, since they are in synchrony with previously conducted studies. They are equally transferable; the findings are applicable to all groups of healthcare students across the board (May, 2001). The study has got several strengths and weaknesses. Some of the strengths of the study are in the fact the findings are highly applicable to the situation in centres where healthcare practitioners train. Secondly, the research methodology was solid and ensured impermeable research (Lobiondo & Harber, 2009). Lastly, the findings of Ridley’s (2011) work are backed by those of other authors that preceded her in researching on dyslexia in health practitioners. Some of the weaknesses of the study include the fact that some affected students did not volunteer for the study, given the stigma attached to dyslexic health practitioners. Apart from this, the researcher admits that some of the responses given may have been influenced by the fact that the participants had a relationship with the interviewer, coupled with the sensitive nature of the topic. Lastly, the finding’s transferability is reduced by the fact that no first year students volunteered to participate in the study. The conclusion of the study is comprehensive. They aptly summarize the findings and provide a way forward for healthcare students that may be struggling with dyslexia in their various learning institutions. The researcher advocates for students seeking professional help. The conclusion also highlights some of the implications of the research findings for practice. One of the implications is that students with dyslexia should be diagnosed early for purposes of prompt professional aid, alongside enhancing the support accorded to students diagnosed with dyslexia in order to achieve proper learning outcomes. In her report, Ridley (2011) adheres to a few issues to do with the achievement of rigour in research. According to Fossey et al. (2002), rigour has to do with trustworthiness of the report. Towards this, several factors have to be applicable to the study. First is procedural rigour (Ryan, Coughlan & Cronin, 2007), which has to do with the reduction of bias through the use of precise data collection techniques that incorporate reflection. Secondly, Thomas, Nelson & Silverman (2005) talk of ethical rigor, which has to do with the way by which ethical considerations are upheld in the course of the study. Lastly is rigour in documentation, which ensures that there is a relationship between all the steps of the study, beginning from the research question or topic to the very last stage, which is the recommendations and conclusion section. These are brought out clearly in the report by Ridley (2011); one can see an interconnection of her research question, the aim of her study, the literature review, the methodology, her findings and the recommendations presented. In addition, her work outlines the ethical considerations for conducting the study and finally, the methods outlined for data collection are well picked and justified by the author. References Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., Tight, M. (2009). How to research. Buckingham: Open University Press. Cormack, D. (2000).The research process in Nursing. (4th edition). Oxford: Blackwell Science. Dale, M, and Taylor, B. (2001). ‘How adult learners make sense of their dyslexia.’ Disability & Society. 16, (7) p.997-1008. Ellis, P. (2013). Understanding research for Nursing students. (2nd edition). Exeter: Learning matters limited. Fossey, E., Harvey, C., McDermott, F., Davidson, L. (2002). ‘Understanding and evaluating Qualitative Research.’ Aust N Z J Psychiatry 36, (6) p.717-732 Gomm, R. (2004). Social research methodology: A critical introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave –MacMillan. Goode, J. (2007). ‘Managing’ disability: early experiences of university students with disabilities.’ Disability & Society. 22 (1) p.35-48 Hartley, S.L., Lickel, A.H., MacLean, W.E. (2008). ‘Reassurance seeking and depression in adults with mild intellectual disability.’ Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 52 (11) p.917-929. Kumar, R. (2010). Research Methodology. A step by step guide for beginners. London: Sage publication. Lewith, G. Wayne, J. B., Walach, H. (2003). Clinical reserach in complementary therapies: principles, problems and solutions. London: Churchill Livingstone. Lobiondo-Wood, G. and Haber, J. (2009). Nursing Research: methods and critical appraisal for evidence based practice. St Louis: Moseby Elsevier. May, T. (2001). Social Research: Issues, methods and processes. (3rd ed). Buckingham: Open University Press. Morris, D., and Turnbull, P. (2006). ‘Clinical experiences of students with dyslexia.’ Journal of Advanced Nursing. 54 (2) p. 238-247. Parahoo, K. (2010). Nursing research principles, process and issues (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Polit, D. and Beck, C. T. (2011) Essential of Nursing Research. (9th Edition). Philadelphia: Lippincott. Rees, C. (2001). An introduction to research for midwives. (2nd ed) London: Elsevier. Ridley, C. (2011). ‘The experiences of nursing students with dyslexia.’ Nursing Standard 25, (24) p.35-42. Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2007). ‘Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: qualitative research’ British Journal of Nursing 16, (12), p.738-745 Shellenbarger, T. (1993). ‘Helping the dyslexic nursing student.’ Nurse Educator 18, (6) p.10-13. Shuler, S.N. (1990). ‘Nursing students with learning disabilities: guidelines for fostering success.’ Nursing Forum. 25 (2) p.15-18. Thomas, J.R., Nelson, J.K., Silverman, S. (2005). Research methods in physical activity (5th ed). Human Kinetics Read More