Commend on this
Good article. Okay, sounds like your assessment on quasi-experimental is logical. There were different comparison groups without random assignment. The intervention was the use of numbers to document pain ratings. Was this the numerical pain scale? I would assume so. The tool is the intervention and the data collection were the EBP pain rating tools. So there was a patient side and a provider side to this study in terms of assessment it sounds like. The second part, the provider part, sounds like qualitative in terms of collecting data on experiences of providers managing palliative pain. No random assignment either, since 2 teams were used. So they were designated groups. Yes, then this is also non-probability sampling because the researcher wants to only look at a certain population. They consisted of 9 teams from a population of 125 employees, have I got this right?
Again, non-probability is easier to use since you have the set population at hand, but there can be bias too as well as questionable population representation.
The post week 3.1.1 appeared first on Academic Pals.