DQ: Name two different methods for evaluating evidence

NRS 493  Topic 3 DQ 2

DQ: Name two different methods for evaluating evidence

In nursing research, the evaluation of evidence is a vital aspect when it comes to decision making and the development of evidence. This is because the evaluation of evidence gives rise to the evidence that will aid in the decision making. That said, there are two major ways of evaluating evidence. The first way is the qualitative method. Qualitative evaluation of data occurs when data has been deleted qualitatively through either direct or participant observation, review of literature, focus groups, case studies and interviews (Marston et al., 2020). Qualitative evaluation of data entails exploring and examining. the data collected, comparing and contrasting the ideas and then eventually, interpreting the patterns arising from the data collected. This data is however evaluated using non-numerical methods and thus, some of the strategies that are used are usually thematic evaluation and content evaluation of the data where the data is evaluated based on the themes present, or the content within the sources of data. This model of evaluation has however been associated with certain shortcomings, key among them being that it is purely subjective as it is not statistically grounded. Furthermore, the data generated may be skewed as interpretation relies on the experience of the researcher. However, qualitative evaluation methods have a range of strength as well, including the fact that research topics can be examined in great detail and this arises due to the fact that the interviews are not restricted. to specific questions. Furthermore, as new information emerges qualitative evaluation is flexible and it allows for changes in methodology and direction.

There are various different methods for evaluating evidence. The two main methods are categorized as quantitative and qualitative methods of evaluating evidence. Quantitative methods involve the use of assessing and collecting data in numerical forms. This includes but is not restricted to calculating standard deviation, mean or average, Mann Whitney tests etc (Quantitative research and analysis: Quantitative methods overview, 2021). This form of data is measurable and is more easily able to use to predict a pattern or finding. Most research and experiments conducted in nursing, research, and other fields involve the collection of quantitative data and quantitative methods of research because it is more reliable and straight forward than qualitative tests. Qualitative methods and analyze data based on qualitative categories such as experiences, perceptions, observations, and processes rather than numerical data that shows cause and effect. This type of methos is useful when trying to find a correlation and especially important between a physician and patients. The patient presents qualitative data like how they’re feeling, where the pain is from, and what type of pain they are in along with other symptoms they are experiencing so that the physician can use these qualitative data points to match the disease that is typically linked with the symptoms that the patient is also exhibiting. Whereas, in the context of a patient and physician, the patients reporting of how many times they have went to the restroom, their caloric intake, and other information like weight, height, body mass index, blood pressure, heart rate etc. are all forms of quantitative data. The pros of qualitative research are that it allows for flexibility and creativity because the scope of the project is continuously changing as more data is collected. While there are benefits, cons of qualitative research include the fact that they are very open to interpretation and therefore very subjective.

This allows for a greater amount of bias which includes participant bias and researcher bias which will compromise the reliability and accuracy of the experiment as a whole. Qualitative research is also conducted on smaller sample sizes because data collection is usually

DQ Name two different methods for evaluating evidence

DQ Name two different methods for evaluating evidence

longer and more tedious with more costs. As for quantitative research, pros include the fact that data is objective, and bias is much more limited than in qualitative studies. Data collected from quantitative methods can also be collected a lot easier and communicated through data sheets, statistics, charts, and graphs which make it simpler to follow. Unlike qualitative data, new technology and software systems can easily compute data and manipulate it to isolated variables that the researcher is looking for to find a cause and effect. While there are benefits, the cons of quantitative research include that it is very restrictive and there is one clear answer rather than participants being allowed to elaborate on their answers for more context. Furthermore, analysis of statistics gathered in quantitative research calls for a much larger pool of participants. Both qualitative and quantitative research seek to find correlations in the collected data and both are significant in disproving existing theories, creating new ones, and elaborating on ones that already exist (Hoover, 2021).

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: DQ: Name two different methods for evaluating evidence

Hoover, L. (2021). What is qualitative vs. Quantitative Study? GCU. Retrieved May 7, 2022, from https://www.gcu.edu/blog/doctoral-journey/what-qualitative-vs-quantitative-study

Quantitative research and analysis: Quantitative methods overview. LibGuides. (2021). Retrieved May 7, 2022, from https://lib-guides.letu.edu/quantresearch

Posted Date

May 6, 2022, 9:54 PM

There are two main venues of research to assess information and/or data to in-turn be utilized to benefit the medical (or any) field and for the ultimate benefit of the patients and communities served. Quantitative, utilizes QUANTITIES: numbers, measurements, comparisons and may “include studies such as clinical trials, cohort studies and systematic reviews” per. Chambers and Cowdell (2021). Quantitative research seeks to answer the “what” yet vital aspect of a way to study. Wuhan, China compared medical data in a quantitative study including Covid-19 positive patients (191 recruited) and a randomly selected control group of 50 healthy persons (Yufei et al., 2020). This quantitative research provided information regarding an assessment of possible Covid-19 pneumonia and looking at the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios (NLR) and C-reactive protein level (CRP) per Yufei et al., with findings of substantially elevated levels among Covid-19 patients compared to the healthy volunteers control group (2020). Chambers and Cowdell inform us a gold standard of research is considered the randomized controlled trial which looks at a randomly selected group (for example of patients with a particular disease or illness) that is either placed in the intervention group or the control group (2021). The results are reported via the quantitative research data, yet the value of the patient insight is not to be taken lightly and should be added (which would add the vital qualitative research aspect) (Chambers & Cowdell, 2021).

Qualitative research makes use of words with descriptions, life, color and insight and per Chambers and Cowdell may incorporate interviews and discussion groups to “explore participants’ perspectives” (2021). This venue of research takes into consideration, persons feelings, experiences or beliefs of the “how” and/or the “why” of the question being sought (Chambers & Cowdell, 2021). An example of a qualitative study is a study in Sao Paulo, seeking to gain understanding from health care professionals who provide direct observation treatment for persons with multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR TB) and the benefits derived for future medical professionals to have insight of interactions and care for the patients they served in the midst of Covid-19 (Souza et al., 2021).

If a comparison is needed regarding 2 different medications and their effectiveness, Chambers and Cowdell inform us, a quantitative study would provide the needed data; however if seeking to comprehend patients’/persons’ feelings and experiences with the medication ~ a qualitative study would be provided (2021).

Data, numbers and the “what” of research is vital to glean from, yet we must never forget why the data is being researched … it is for the individuals, families and communities we serve and their insight, information and voice is crucial to see the big and full picture and for us as medical professionals to be able to provide optimal and quality patient care. Care to patients.


Chalmers, J., & Cowdell, F. (2021). What Are Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods? A Brief Introduction. Dermatological Nursing, 20(2), 45–48.

Souza, L. L. L., Santos, F. L., dos, Crispim, J. de A., Fiorati, R. C., Dias, S., Bruce, A. T. I, Alves, Y. M. Ramos A.C V., Berra, T. Z., da Costa, F. B. P., Alves, L. S., Monroe, A. A., Fronteria, I. & Arcenio, R. A. (2021). Causes of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis from the perspectives of health providers: challenges and strategies for adherence to treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. BMS Health Services Research 21(1) 1-10. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-07057-0. PMID: 34592970; PMCID: PMC8483800.

Yufei, Y., Mingli, L., Xuejiao, L., Xuemei, D., Yiming, J., Qin, Q., Hui, S., & Jie, G. (2020). Utility of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and C-reactive protein level for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation, 80(7), 536–540. https://doi-org.lopes.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/00365513.2020.1803587

Quantitative data is any information that can be measured or tallied and assigned a numerical value. It explains how much we need to calculate and how frequently. As a result, quantitative data is based on numbers or is measurable. It is constant and universal. Statistical analysis is used to analyze data. The report can be quantified. When using this data, you can find out “how many,” “how much,” or “how often.” Tests of causal links between variables, the formulation of predictions, and the application of findings to larger populations are quantitative research objectives. Math and statistical analysis are used to analyze it. It also calls for many respondents, and the questions are either closed-ended or multiple-choice. Graphs and tables frequently present the results. Quantitative data, in comparison, is unbiased and less prone because it is simple to draw conclusions and generalize from the facts (Duesbery & Twyman,2020).

Qualitative data, in contrast to quantitative data, cannot be counted or quantified. It is descriptive and uses language to describe ideas rather than numbers. Researchers using qualitative methods can gather in-depth insights on poorly understood subjects. To address the question “Why?” and “How?” researchers frequently turn to qualitative data. The same summary, categorization, and interpretation techniques are used to evaluate it. There are few respondents needed, and the questions are open-ended. Writings that investigate concepts and theories are used to discuss the observations and reviews of related material. It is sometimes described as non-numerical data like text, audio, video, or pictures. Unstructured interviews are qualitative research technique that uses open-ended questions to produce qualitative data. This enables the respondent to speak in-depth and on their terms. It facilitates the researcher’s grasp of a subject’s perspective in each circumstance. Qualitative data differs from quantitative data in that it contains a wealth of information and enables context exploration (Ruggiano & Perry,2019).




Duesbery, L., & Twyman, T. (2020). What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative approaches to action research design? In 100 questions (and answers) about action research (pp. 58-58). SAGE Publications, Inc., https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781544305455.n37


Ruggiano, N., & Perry, T. E. (2019). Conducting secondary analysis of qualitative data: Should we, can we, and how? Qualitative Social Work18(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325017700701