Research methodology papers

METHODOLOGICAL PAPERS

Please refer to the general guidelines under Preparation of the Manuscript. In addition, please note the following requirements for these article types.

Instrument Development papers

Abstract

200 words. Your abstract should include the following headings: Aims (of the paper), Background, Design, Methods (including year of data collection), Results/Findings, Conclusion. The Aim should simply state: ‘To develop and psychometrically test [name of instrument]…'. The abstract should not include abbreviations.

Main Text

To include the headings below.

Introduction

  • Provide the rationale and context for development of the instrument.
  • Clearly identify and define the concept that was operationalised by the instrument. Situate the concept within the context of a theory. For example, ‘X Questionnaire was designed to measure concept X, which is viewed within the context of XYZ theory.’
  • Present a critical review of existing literature regarding the concept and critically evaluate any existing instruments that measure the concept, explaining how X Questionnaire overcomes limitations in previous instruments.
  • Discuss the international relevance of the instrument.

Methods

  • Aim(s). Aim(s) of the study should emphasize development and testing of psychometric properties of the instrument. Write the aim of the study exactly the same in the abstract and text. For example, ‘The purpose of the study was to develop and test the psychometric properties of X Questionnaire.’
  • Methodology. Indicate whether the instrument was developed in phases or stages, such as one phase for item generation, another phase for content validity testing, and yet another phase for testing other psychometric properties, such as internal consistency reliability and construct validity. If more than one phase/stage, present all methods and results for the first phase, followed by all methods and results for the next phase, and so on. If translation of the instrument was required, indicate methods used, such as translation and back translation.
  • Sample/Participants. Indicate the size of the sample for each phase/stage and justify sample size. Indicate how study participants were recruited. The date of data collection must be given in the text and abstract.
  • The Instrument. Describe the instrument, including how items were generated, number of initial items, any subscales, rating scale, and scoring technique.
  • Ethical considerations. Identify any particular ethical issues for this research. Provide a statement of ethics committee approval, or whatever ethical processes applied for this study. Do not name the institution from which ethics committee approval was obtained.

Results

  • Present the results for each phase/stage.
  • Refer to reliability and validity coefficients as ‘estimates.’ Include descriptive data, such as means, standard deviations, and ranges, for instrument total and subscale or factor scores. If factor analysis was used to test construct validity, indicate type of factor analysis and rotation used.

Discussion

  • Use tentative language when discussing psychometric properties, such as ‘evidence of acceptable reliability and validity’ or ‘estimates of reliability and validity.’ Do not conclude that psychometric properties were ‘established’ or ‘proven.’
  • Use the most recent editions of references cited for judgments of ‘acceptable’ psychometric properties.
  • Discuss the utility of the conceptual model that guided the study and the empirical adequacy of the theoretical concept measured by the instrument.
  • Consider study limitations, including but not confined to sample representativeness and/or sample size and generalisability/external validity of the results.

Conclusion

  • Indicate appropriate use of the instrument on the basis of estimates of psychometric properties, including populations, and settings.

Methodology Discussion papers

Abstract

200 words. Your abstract should include the following headings: Aims, Background, Design (state ‘Discussion paper’), Data Sources (state inclusion dates of literature or data used), Implications for Nursing, Conclusion. The Aim should simply state: ‘A discussion of …’. The abstract should not include abbreviations.

Keywords

A maximum of 10; possible keywords include: Philosophy, Conceptual model, Middle range theory, Nursing theory, Nursing practice, Professional issues, Policy.

Main Text

To include the headings below.

Introduction

  • Clearly identify the conceptual, philosophical, theoretical or professional issue to be discussed.
  • Discuss the international relevance of the issue.
  • Situate the issue within the context of existing nursing knowledge, such as philosophies of nursing science, an existing nursing conceptual model or an existing grand or middle-range nursing theory.
  • Explain the issue and how the content of this paper extends or fills a gap in nursing knowledge.

Data Sources

  • If the discussion is based on a search of the literature, identify the databases searched, with inclusive dates of the literature searched, keywords used, and languages included. Discuss retrieval of references and handling, including inclusion and exclusion criteria.
  • If it is not based on a search of the literature, consider using wording such as 'this discussion paper is based on our experiences and supported by literature and theory.'

Discussion

  • Use subheadings appropriate to the issue.
  • Present a critical analysis of any literature reviewed.
  • Present the new way of viewing a philosophy of nursing science, nursing practice or research methodology, or new nursing conceptual model, theory or recommendations for revisions to an existing nursing conceptual model or theory, or new perspectives on how to enhance research practice and contribute to high quality research findings.
  • Implications for Nursing. Discuss the contributions to nursing knowledge of the new way of viewing a philosophy of nursing science or nursing practice or research methodology, or the new nursing conceptual model or theory or recommendations for revisions to an existing nursing conceptual model or theory.

Conclusion

  • Do not simply summarise or repeat your findings. You should briefly explain the relevance of your findings for practice/research/education/management as appropriate.

Empirical Research Methodology papers

Abstract

200 words. Your abstract should include the following headings: Aims (of the paper), Background, Design, Methods, Results, Conclusion. The Aim should simply state: ‘To …’. The abstract should not include abbreviations.

Main Text

To include the headings below.

Introduction

  • Clearly identify the rationale, context and international relevance of the methodology/methodological issue.
  • Present the method, and/or methodological issue, conceptual or theoretical framework that guided the methodological study, identifying and providing an overview of the methodological/conceptual model and/or theory where appropriate. Identify and define key concepts or study variables. Provide a substantial, critical review of relevant contextual, methodological and empirical literature.

Methods

  • Aim(s). State the aims of the methodological study as a study purpose or as research questions or hypotheses to be tested. For example, ‘The aim of the study was to…’.
  • Design. Identify the specific research design, methodological developmental framework and/or evaluation design used with appropriate citations. Describe the stages, methods, and processes for methodological development, adaptation, testing as appropriate. If appropriate it may be helpful to include a CONSORT diagram to illustrate the design and conduct of the methodological study.
  • Sample/Participants. If a sample was used, identify the sampling strategy/strategies used: random; stratified; convenience; purposive (state what purpose). For example, ‘A convenience sample of Registered Nurses was recruited’, ‘A random sample of patients was recruited…’ Identify the inclusion and exclusion criteria. For example, ‘The inclusion criteria were…’, ‘The exclusion criteria were…’ Explain how participants were recruited. Identify the size of the sample (and the population). Report the power analysis or sample size calculation, if appropriate; if not appropriate or not undertaken, provide another type of justification for the sample size.
  • Data generation/collection/testing. Select most appropriate heading(s) for the particular methodological study. Use additional subheadings for different types of data generation/collection/testing techniques, if appropriate, e.g. interviews, questionnaires, assessments. For example, ‘Data were collected using a questionnaire/interview/discrete choice experiment etc…’, ‘Individual assessments were conducted …’. Identify the period of data generation/collection/testing (e.g. between November 2012 - June 2014).
  • Ethical considerations. Identify any particular ethical issues for this research. Provide a statement of ethics committee approval but do not name the institution from which ethics committee approval was obtained. Explain any other approvals obtained, for example, local site arrangements to meet research governance requirements. If, according to local regulations, no formal ethical scrutiny was required or undertaken, please state this.
  • Data analysis. Describe the techniques used to analyse the data, including computer software used, if appropriate. For example, ‘SPSS version X was used to analyse the data. Analysis of variance techniques were used to test the hypotheses.’ If the paper contains statistical analyses, consider the guidance on statistical reporting.
  • Validity and reliability/Rigor. Provide estimates for rigor of assessments and/or the psychometric properties of quantitative instruments. If translation has been required from the original language, please explain the procedures used to maintain validity of translated tools. If tools were developed for this study, describe the processes employed, including validity and reliability testing. If the methodological study included qualitative methods, describe how rigor was maintained.  

Results

  • Report each stage of methodological development/adaptation/testing/evaluation. Provide an overall synthesis of different stages if appropriate.
  • Use subheadings as appropriate.
  • Use figures and tables as needed, but try to limit to no more than three or four tables and one or two figures. Each figure/table should be referred to in the text, but do not repeat in the text material which is set out in tables. Rather, identify key points in text, and refer readers to tables for detail. Tables/figures should be comprehensible without reference to the text, i.e. all abbreviations should be explained; all tests used identified, with provision of appropriate values.

Discussion

  • Discussion must be in relation to the development/testing/application/evaluation of the method and/or methodological, conceptual or theoretical framework and existing literature.
  • Draw conclusions about what new knowledge has emerged from the methodological study, and what your work adds to existing methods/methodological literature.
  • Limitations. Consider study limitations including what else needs to be done to complete the development/validation/evaluation of the method/methodological issue.

Conclusion

Do not just summarise/repeat findings but discuss the transferability/generalisability/ reliability/ validity of findings to other contexts/ populations and settings. Identify implications/ recommendations for practice/ research/ evaluation as appropriate, consistent with the limitations.