Reliability and Sample Methods Used in peer-reviewed nursing articles

Reliability and Sample Methods Used in peer-reviewed nursing articles
The article included all peer-reviewed articles that reported empirical data on the relationship between MCAT scores and the medical schools’ performance or medical board licensing exam measures. The study utilized well-reputable databases like Medline, PsycINFO, and ERIC to get the literature. Additionally, the inclusion criteria for a study to be included in the meta-analysis was succinct and clear. Only refereed journals were included; hence, this enhanced the article’s quality and reliability since it only included the peer-reviewed studies. The process of data extraction was quite comprehensive and methodological. The study also utilized two coders (TD and EOP) and discrepancies corroborated by a third coder (CV) (Donnon et al., 2007). This makes the article bit reliable.

Sampling Methods Appropriateness

The sampling methods were not appropriate for the population that they were trying to assess. The sampling methods applied could not avail them with a significant literature that could be used to test for the population. Additionally, the sampling method does not directly impact the validity and reliability of the study.  The evidence is extracted from a number of primary studies and not from a random sampling; therefore, it cannot ascertain causality or lead to test relations. The study also followed the guidelines for reporting observational studies, even though meta-analysis is more reliable when done on randomized controlled trials (Ahn & Kang, 2018).

Reliability and Validity

Reliability and validity are not expressly addressed in the article. Hence the internal validity can be affected by errors and short evaluations during the initial phases.  The study additionally does not assess the risk of study bias in the meta-analysis. It has a coding protocol but does not put into place an adequate comprehensive protocol according to the Preferred Reporting Items Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Ahn & Kang, 2018).

Generally, the study does not have good validity and reliability. This affects the generalization of the results (eternal validity) and minimizes bias (internal validity). The study, though tested for heterogeneity of all the studies. The article has internal consistency but may lack the test-retest reliability and inter-rater reliability.



Donnon, T., Paolucci, E. O., & Violato, C. (2007). The predictive validity of the MCAT for medical school performance and medical board licensing examinations: a meta-analysis of the published research. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges82(1), 100–106.

Ahn, E., & Kang, H. (2018). Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean journal of anesthesiology71(2), 103–112.

Related Posts:

(Visited 3 times, 1 visits today)