These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
310 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1956815)
21. Missing data: an introductory conceptual overview for the novice researcher. El-Masri MM; Fox-Wasylyshyn SM Can J Nurs Res; 2005 Dec; 37(4):156-71. PubMed ID: 16541824 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Impact of unreliability of measurements on statistical conclusion validity. Strickland OL J Nurs Meas; 2005; 13(2):83-5. PubMed ID: 16401039 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Understanding and critiquing quantitative research papers. Lee P Nurs Times; 2006 Jul 11-17; 102(28):28-30. PubMed ID: 16869219 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Understanding the error of our ways: mapping the concepts of validity and reliability. Higgins PA; Straub AJ Nurs Outlook; 2006; 54(1):23-9. PubMed ID: 16487776 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Random assignment and patient choice in a study of alternative pain relief for sickle cell disease. Nield-Anderson L; Dixon JK; Lee K West J Nurs Res; 1999 Apr; 21(2):266-74. PubMed ID: 11512181 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Selecting the sample for a research study. Summers S J Post Anesth Nurs; 1991 Oct; 6(5):355-8. PubMed ID: 1833537 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Pseudo cluster randomization: a treatment allocation method to minimize contamination and selection bias. Borm GF; Melis RJ; Teerenstra S; Peer PG Stat Med; 2005 Dec; 24(23):3535-47. PubMed ID: 16007575 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Increasing the precision of data analysis: planned comparisons versus omnibus tests. Wu YW; Slakter MJ Nurs Res; 1990; 39(4):251-3. PubMed ID: 2367210 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Critiquing research for use in practice. Dale JC J Pediatr Health Care; 2005; 19(3):183-6. PubMed ID: 15867836 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Secondary analysis: theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations. Clarke SP; Cossette S Can J Nurs Res; 2000 Dec; 32(3):109-29. PubMed ID: 11928128 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. How to avoid the pitfalls of questionnaire design. McGibbon G Nurs Times; 1997 May 7-13; 93(19):49-51. PubMed ID: 9188438 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Pseudo cluster randomization: balancing the disadvantages of cluster and individual randomization. Melis RJ; Teerenstra S; Olde Rikkert MG; Borm GF Eval Health Prof; 2011 Jun; 34(2):151-63. PubMed ID: 20457714 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The research critique. General criteria for evaluating a research report. Beck CT J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs; 1990; 19(1):18-22. PubMed ID: 2299438 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Historical research in nursing: standards for research and evaluation. Hewitt LC J N Y State Nurses Assoc; 1997 Sep; 28(3):16-9. PubMed ID: 9369656 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Good study design and analysis plans as features of ethical research with humans. Weinberg JM; Kleinman KP IRB; 2003; 25(5):11-4. PubMed ID: 14870739 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Research methodology. Part IV: Understanding canonical correlation analysis. Beard MT; Edwards KA; Curry EL; Marshall DD; Johnson MN ABNF J; 1996; 7(1):11-8. PubMed ID: 8715316 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Practicing nursing research: Part 3. Critiquing the hard part: research design and data analysis. Smith CR J Vasc Nurs; 1993 Dec; 11(4):116-21. PubMed ID: 8286282 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Understanding the research methodology: should we trust the researchers' conclusions? Schmelzer M Gastroenterol Nurs; 2000; 23(6):269-74. PubMed ID: 11854971 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]