Download Free Quality Assessment Of Research Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Quality Assessment Of Research and write the review.

Healthcare decision makers in search of reliable information that compares health interventions increasingly turn to systematic reviews for the best summary of the evidence. Systematic reviews identify, select, assess, and synthesize the findings of similar but separate studies, and can help clarify what is known and not known about the potential benefits and harms of drugs, devices, and other healthcare services. Systematic reviews can be helpful for clinicians who want to integrate research findings into their daily practices, for patients to make well-informed choices about their own care, for professional medical societies and other organizations that develop clinical practice guidelines. Too often systematic reviews are of uncertain or poor quality. There are no universally accepted standards for developing systematic reviews leading to variability in how conflicts of interest and biases are handled, how evidence is appraised, and the overall scientific rigor of the process. In Finding What Works in Health Care the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends 21 standards for developing high-quality systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. The standards address the entire systematic review process from the initial steps of formulating the topic and building the review team to producing a detailed final report that synthesizes what the evidence shows and where knowledge gaps remain. Finding What Works in Health Care also proposes a framework for improving the quality of the science underpinning systematic reviews. This book will serve as a vital resource for both sponsors and producers of systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research.
This paper arose in response to a gap in the literature and a need on the part of health science researchers for a standard reproducible criteria for simultaneously critically appraising the quality of a wide range of studies. The paper is meant to stimulate discussion about how to further advance the capacity of researchers to effectively conduct the critical appraisals. It is hoped that researchers will continue to test the validity of and refine the "Qualsyst" tool which is described in this paper.
This is a book for any researcher using any kind of survey data. It introduces the latest methods of assessing the quality and validity of such data by providing new ways of interpreting variation and measuring error. By practically and accessibly demonstrating these techniques, especially those derived from Multiple Correspondence Analysis, the authors develop screening procedures to search for variation in observed responses that do not correspond with actual differences between respondents. Using well-known international data sets, the authors exemplify how to detect all manner of non-substantive variation having sources such as a variety of response styles including acquiescence, respondents′ failure to understand questions, inadequate field work standards, interview fatigue, and even the manufacture of (partly) faked interviews.
To order please visit https://onlineacademiccommunity.uvic.ca/press/books/ordering/
Mixed Methods Research: A Guide to the Field by Vicki L. Plano Clark and Nataliya V. Ivankova is a practical book that introduces a unique socio-ecological framework for understanding the field of mixed methods research and its different perspectives. Based on the framework, it addresses basic questions including: What is the mixed methods research process? How is mixed methods research defined? Why is it used? What designs are available? How does mixed methods research intersect with other research approaches? What is mixed methods research quality? How is mixed methods shaped by personal, interpersonal, and social contexts? By focusing on the topics, perspectives, and debates occurring in the field of mixed methods research, the book helps students, scholars, and researchers identify, understand, and participate in these conversations to inform their own research practice. Mixed Methods Research is Volume 3 in the SAGE Mixed Methods Research Series.
The internal validity of a study reflects the extent to which the design and conduct of the study have prevented bias(es). One of the key steps in a systematic review is assessment of a study's internal validity, or potential for bias. This assessment serves to: (1) identify the strengths and limitations of the included studies; (2) investigate, and potentially explain heterogeneity in findings across different studies included in a systematic review; and (3) grade the strength of evidence for a given question. The risk of bias assessment directly informs one of four key domains considered when assessing the strength of evidence. With the increase in the number of published systematic reviews and development of systematic review methodology over the past 15 years, close attention has been paid to the methods for assessing internal validity. Until recently this has been referred to as “quality assessment” or “assessment of methodological quality.” In this context “quality” refers to “the confidence that the trial design, conduct, and analysis has minimized or avoided biases in its treatment comparisons.” To facilitate the assessment of methodological quality, a plethora of tools has emerged. Some of these tools were developed for specific study designs (e.g., randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies), while others were intended to be applied to a range of designs. The tools often incorporate characteristics that may be associated with bias; however, many tools also contain elements related to reporting (e.g., was the study population described) and design (e.g., was a sample size calculation performed) that are not related to bias. The Cochrane Collaboration recently developed a tool to assess the potential risk of bias in RCTs. The Risk of Bias (ROB) tool was developed to address some of the shortcomings of existing quality assessment instruments, including over-reliance on reporting rather than methods. Several systematic reviews have catalogued and critiqued the numerous tools available to assess methodological quality, or risk of bias of primary studies. In summary, few existing tools have undergone extensive inter-rater reliability or validity testing. Moreover, the focus of much of the tool development or testing that has been done has been on criterion or face validity. Therefore it is unknown whether, or to what extent, the summary assessments based on these tools differentiate between studies with biased and unbiased results (i.e., studies that may over- or underestimate treatment effects). There is a clear need for inter-rater reliability testing of different tools in order to enhance consistency in their application and interpretation across different systematic reviews. Further, validity testing is essential to ensure that the tools being used can identify studies with biased results. Finally, there is a need to determine inter-rater reliability and validity in order to support the uptake and use of individual tools that are recommended by the systematic review community, and specifically the ROB tool within the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program. In this project we focused on two tools that are commonly used in systematic reviews. The Cochrane ROB tool was designed for RCTs and is the instrument recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration for use in systematic reviews of RCTs. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale is commonly used for nonrandomized studies, specifically cohort and case-control studies.
This book explores the challenges of assessing quality in applied and practice-based research in education. It offers various views on quality in applied and practice-based research and proposes ways in which qualitycriteria may reflect more closely the diversity of applied research and its complex entanglements with practice and policy.
Healthcare providers, consumers, researchers and policy makers are inundated with unmanageable amounts of information, including evidence from healthcare research. It has become impossible for all to have the time and resources to find, appraise and interpret this evidence and incorporate it into healthcare decisions. Cochrane Reviews respond to this challenge by identifying, appraising and synthesizing research-based evidence and presenting it in a standardized format, published in The Cochrane Library (www.thecochranelibrary.com). The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions contains methodological guidance for the preparation and maintenance of Cochrane intervention reviews. Written in a clear and accessible format, it is the essential manual for all those preparing, maintaining and reading Cochrane reviews. Many of the principles and methods described here are appropriate for systematic reviews applied to other types of research and to systematic reviews of interventions undertaken by others. It is hoped therefore that this book will be invaluable to all those who want to understand the role of systematic reviews, critically appraise published reviews or perform reviews themselves.
The best-selling introduction to evidence-based medicine In a clear and engaging style, How to Read a Paper demystifies evidence-based medicine and explains how to critically appraise published research and also put the findings into practice. An ideal introduction to evidence-based medicine, How to Read a Paper explains what to look for in different types of papers and how best to evaluate the literature and then implement the findings in an evidence-based, patient-centred way. Helpful checklist summaries of the key points in each chapter provide a useful framework for applying the principles of evidence-based medicine in everyday practice. This fifth edition has been fully updated with new examples and references to reflect recent developments and current practice. It also includes two new chapters on applying evidence-based medicine with patients and on the common criticisms of evidence-based medicine and responses. How to Read a Paper is a standard text for medical and nursing schools as well as a friendly guide for everyone wanting to teach or learn the basics of evidence-based medicine.
This book analyses and discusses the recent developments for assessing research quality in the humanities and related fields in the social sciences. Research assessments in the humanities are highly controversial and the evaluation of humanities research is delicate. While citation-based research performance indicators are widely used in the natural and life sciences, quantitative measures for research performance meet strong opposition in the humanities. This volume combines the presentation of state-of-the-art projects on research assessments in the humanities by humanities scholars themselves with a description of the evaluation of humanities research in practice presented by research funders. Bibliometric issues concerning humanities research complete the exhaustive analysis of humanities research assessment. The selection of authors is well-balanced between humanities scholars, research funders, and researchers on higher education. Hence, the edited volume succeeds in painting a comprehensive picture of research evaluation in the humanities. This book is valuable to university and science policy makers, university administrators, research evaluators, bibliometricians as well as humanities scholars who seek expert knowledge in research evaluation in the humanities.