Wilson, F., Brown, D., Stephens-Ferris, M. (2006). Can easy-to-read immunization information increase knowledge in urban low-income mothers. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 21(1), 4-12. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2005.06.003
Aspect of the Report
Is the title a good one, succinctly suggesting key variables and the study population?
The title is sufficiently brief yet describes key variables such as immunization information, urban-low income mothers, increased knowledge and easy-to-read dictates level of skill required.
Does the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the report (problem, methods, results, conclusions)?
The abstract clearly and concisely summarizes…show more content… Method
Protection of participants’ rights
Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants? Was the study subject to external review by an IRB/ethics review board?
Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to participants? This is a small scale study done in preparation for a major study so an IRB/ethics review board was not consulted. The consent provisions were followed with all study participants. The tests were administered then participants took information home to read and look over for a test-retest in two weeks.
Was the most rigorous possible design used, given the purpose of the research?
Were appropriate comparisons made to enhance interpretability of the findings?
Was the number of data collection points appropriate?
Did the design minimize biases and threats to the internal, construct, and external validity of the study (e.g., was blinding used, was attrition minimized)?
External validity of the small sampling cause concerns for generalizability of results. As mentioned in the Discussion section of the research, 106 and 130 participants per groups would be an appropriate sample size. The most rigorous possible design was not used in this research. One weakness is utilizing the 1953 and 1969 evaluation tools to compare and contrast to the year 2013. Content validity was used when a six member panel of experts evaluated the pamphlets to