Weighing the Evidence - Research Paper Example

Weighing the evidenceSummary The article investigates the appropriate method used in evaluating the weights of outcomes within qualitative studies. The authors used both frequency and quality of the results to analyze their weight. Scholars have not previously considered evaluating the strength of the study outcomes making the researchers to design and evaluate methods that could analyze the results of qualitative studies.Data, results, and analysis Seven qualitative studies were selected with the intention of comparing the strengths of their findings.

All the articles had the same objectives, and focused on children and trauma (Boeije, van & Alisic, 2011). The researchers divided the data analysis into two parts. In the first part, they computed the expert judgments’ and the checklist appraisal inter-rater consistency. In the second part, the researchers weighed themes using the quality appraisal. They recorded the scores of both the checklist and expert judgment on the table because it was easy to examine the outcomes (Boeije, van & Alisic, 2011).

Using the figures recorded on the table, the researchers calculated the inter-rater reliability of both methods using statistical software known as SPSS. They also weighed the evidence using three methods. The first method measured the frequencies of the theme appearance in the article. The second way evaluated a combination of both the frequency and the weight of the expert judgment. The third way involved the frequency combined with the article weights. After comparing all the findings of all the articles, the researchers found out that the frequency of the study concepts is directly proportional to the strength of the study evidence.

This is means that if the frequency with which a concept is studied is the low, the result strength also becomes low especially when one focuses on the quality of outcomes of the weighing process. This was discovered after the researchers compared the checklist appraisal results with the expert judgment made. The researchers used transparency as the reasoning process that allowed them to draw their conclusion (Rohrig, Prel & Blettner, 2009). They concluded that the use of checklist appraisal in weighing the study evidence is better than using expert judgment.

This is because checklist appraisal is transparent and can easily be discussed by the team members or other people. This conclusion was weak because the researchers focused on a single aspect: transparency (Rohrig, Prel & Blettner, 2009). The researchers concluded that checklist appraisals are better that the expert judgment because they are transparency. The findings of the researchers have appropriately addressed the initial research question. However, additional research is necessary to strengthen the findings.

For example, the researcher should conduct research to investigate the effects of the frequency of the study themes on the two methods used in weighing the strength of the study results (Seeman, Dubin & Melvin, 2003). Additionally, the reliability of the weighing scale used in the study is not determined making it crucial for the researchers to conduct an additional study to evaluate the validity and reliability of the weighing scale (Seeman, Dubin & Melvin, 2003). References Boeije, H. R., van Wesel, F.

, & Alisic, E. (2011). Making a difference: towards a method for weighing the evidence in a qualitative synthesis. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(4), 657-663. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=462ebeaa-9f76-48ba-b791- eded4415a628%40sessionmgr12&vid=4&hid=109Rohrig, B, Prel, J. & Blettner, M. (2009). Study Design in medical research, 106(11): 184-9.Seeman, T., Dubin, L. & Seem, M. (2003). A critical view of the evidence for biological pathways.

American Psychologist, 58(1): 53-63.