首页> 外文期刊>New library world >The basis for evidence-based practice: evaluating the research evidence
【24h】

The basis for evidence-based practice: evaluating the research evidence

机译:循证实践的基础:评估研究证据

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Purpose - This article is based on a paper presented at the 2005 IFLA World Library and Information Congress. It brings together the findings to date of the author's research project on research quality, to address issues related to research quality as a basis for the use of research evidence in evidence-based practice. Design/methodology/approach - The methods used include a literature review, a review of existing models for evaluating research evidence, and a pilot project based on a qualitative, naturalistic research design that employed content analysis and statistical techniques. Findings - While a number of strategies have been developed for the evaluation of published research, all have their limitations. The same is true for the models that have been proposed for assisting practitioners to evaluate research evidence as a basis for evidence-based practice. The literature review identified four different approaches to the assessment of quality in research reporting. The pilot study identified three different "value perceptions" held by experienced research evaluators that affected their research evaluations. Practical implications - Although practitioners need to be able to evaluate research reports as a basis for evidence-based practice, there is currently no one strategy that can be recommended as a fail-safe tool to support this activity. Originality/value - The article highlights the variety and limitations of existing strategies or models for evaluating research quality and suggests possible steps forward.
机译:目的-本文基于2005年国际图联世界图书馆与信息大会上发表的论文。它汇集了作者有关研究质量的研究项目的最新发现,以解决与研究质量有关的问题,以此作为在循证实践中使用研究证据的基础。设计/方法/方法-所使用的方法包括文献综述,现有评估研究证据模型的回顾以及基于采用内容分析和统计技术的定性,自然主义研究设计的试点项目。研究结果-尽管已经开发了许多评估已发表研究的策略,但它们都有其局限性。对于已经提出的协助从业人员评估研究证据作为基于证据的实践的基础的模型,也是如此。文献综述确定了四种不同的评估研究报告质量的方法。初步研究确定了影响他们的研究评估的经验丰富的研究评估者所持有的三种不同的“价值观念”。实际意义-尽管从业者需要能够评估研究报告,以作为基于证据的实践的基础,但是目前没有一种策略可以推荐为支持此活动的故障保险工具。原创性/价值-本文重点介绍了用于评估研究质量的现有策略或模型的多样性和局限性,并提出了可能采取的措施。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号