This document discusses the process of interpreting research outcomes. It involves examining study evidence, determining findings, forming conclusions, identifying limitations, generalizing findings, considering implications, and suggesting further research. Key steps include evaluating the research plan, measurements, data collection, analysis, results, and previous studies to determine what the evidence shows and how to interpret the findings. Limitations must be identified and conclusions should not overgeneralize beyond the scope of the study. The implications and need for additional research are also considered.

1. 1Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Chapter 26
Interpreting Research
Outcomes

2. 2Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Interpreting Research Outcomes
(Cont’d)
 Requires abstract thinking
 Introspection, reasoning, and intuition
 Usually the final chapter of theses or
dissertations/“Discussion” section of research
papers
 Aided by discussion with others

3. 3Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Process of Interpreting Research
Outcomes
 For quantitative, outcomes, and intervention
studies
 Examining study evidence
 Determining findings
 Forming conclusions
 Identifying limitations
 Generalizing the findings
 Considering implications for practice
 Suggesting further studies

4. 4Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Examining Evidence
 Identify the limitations of study and consider
how these might affect study findings and
conclusions
 Limitations in a research article are Not flaws,
per se, but rather
 Limitations to the believability of results
 Limitations to generalization

5. 5Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Evidence from the Research Plan
 Does study hold up logically?
 How good are the operationalizations?
 Did the framework really support understanding of variable
connections?
 Were study concepts really what were being measured?
 Was the sample representative? And of what was it
representative?
 Did extraneous variables intrude?
 Were statistical analyses appropriate to
 Levels of measurement?
 Distribution of data?
 Research questions?

6. 6Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Evidence from Measurement
 Again, how well did operational definitions fit
framework?
 Were the measurements valid and reliable?
 Were validity and reliability established for
this study?
 What was the effect size?

7. 7Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Evidence from the Data
Collection Process
 Subject refusal rate
 Subject attrition
 Sample size sufficiency
 Sample representativeness
 Intervention fidelity
 Unforeseen events
 Consistency of measurement techniques

8. 8Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Evidence from the Data Analysis
Process
 Accuracy of data collection, recording,
transcription
 Missing data management
 Accuracy of analyses and mention of
statistical package used, if any
 Adherence to assumptions of statistical tests
 Appropriateness of statistical tests

9. 9Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Evidence from Data Analysis
Results
 Most direct evidence of the results
 Interpretation of results from quasi-
experimental and experimental studies, often
based on decision theory

10. 10Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Evidence from Data Analysis
Results (Cont’d)
 Five possible types of results:
 Significant results in keeping with those predicted
by the researcher
 Nonsignificant results
 Significant results that oppose those predicted by
the researcher
 Mixed results
 Unexpected results

11. 11Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Significant and Predicted Results
 Support logical links developed by researcher
among the purpose, framework, questions,
variables, and measurement methods
 Researcher needs to consider alternative
explanations for positive findings

12. 12Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Nonsignificant Results
 Double-check statistics, to make sure + and –
not reversed
 Double-check data entry, to make sure
reverse-coding occurred, if needed
 Re-calculate power analysis, to reflect actual
effect size (of this study)
 Report results For This Study, not as a
general truth

13. 13Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Significant and not Predicted
Results
 Double-check statistics, to make sure + and –
not reversed
 Double-check data entry, to make sure
reverse-coding occurred, if needed
 Think the logic through again, from concepts
to operational definitions

14. 14Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Mixed Results
 Most common outcome
 Double-check statistics
 Recalculate effect size for each variable
 Re-estimate needed sample sizes for each
test, to check for type II error
 Additional research is indicated to examine
mixed study results

15. 15Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Unexpected (Serendipitous)
Results
 Relationships not in study hypotheses
 Re-examine theoretical ideas, especially
when explaining
 Focus on study hypotheses, but include
serendipitous results in report, too
 Use these findings to develop or refine
theories and to formulate later studies

16. 16Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Evidence from Previous Studies
 Comparison of this study with similar studies
 Is a pattern present?
 Inconsistencies explained, as far as possible

17. 17Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Determining Findings
 Developed by evaluating evidence and
translating and interpreting study results
 Often organized by objectives or hypotheses
 Dialogue with colleagues or mentors to clarify
meaning or expand implications of research
findings

18. 18Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Forming Conclusions
 Synthesis, conjoining, expansion of findings
 Remember that research never proves
anything
 Correlation is Never causation
 Suggestions for subsequent research that
extend findings
 Descriptive research is generalizable only to
very similar populations

19. 19Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Identifying Limitations
 Restrictions or problems in a study that may
decrease the generalizability of the findings
 Theoretical limitations
 Methodological limitations

20. 20Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Theoretical Limitations
 Framework weaknesses or unsuitability
 Variable definition weaknesses
 Framework-to-variable connection shaky

21. 21Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Methodological Limitations
 Limit credibility of the findings
 Weak design
 Limited control over treatment (intervention)
implementation
 Instruments with limited reliability and validity
 Limited control over data collection
 Improper use of statistical analyses
 Restrict generalizability
 Non-representative sample
 Single setting

22. 22Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Generalizing the Findings
 Extends implications of findings from sample
studied to larger population or from situation
studied to larger situation
 Use caution when choosing extent to
generalize
 Empirical generalizations
 Based on accumulated evidence from many
studies
 Important for verifying or developing theory

23. 23Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Considering Implications
 Meanings of conclusions for body of nursing:
knowledge, theory, and practice
 What will change, because of this study?
 At Worst: contributes to body of knowledge
 At Best: contributes to theory, or to actual
clinical practice In The Population From
Which Sample Was Drawn

24. 24Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1997 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc.
Recommending Further Research
 Routine assessment, for purposes of certainty or
application
 Is the evidence now enough for widespread
generalization? If not, one of these is next:
 Replication
 Extension of study
 Change in methodology to establish evidence for practice
 Regarding current study
 Better design, measures, variables
 Avoidance of pitfalls (logical, human)