Critical Analysis: Validity, Significance, and Generalizability Study

This assignment delves into the critical evaluation of a research article concerning thromboprophylaxis in high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer, focusing on the key aspects of research validity, clinical significance, statistical significance, and generalizability. The assessment of validity involves considering factors such as the study's timeframe, the appropriateness of the methodology used for data collection, the suitability of the research instruments, and the adequacy of the sample size. Clinical significance is determined by assessing whether the research findings demonstrate a positive and noticeable improvement for patients, while statistical significance is evaluated based on the likelihood of the results occurring by chance, typically indicated by the p-value. Generalizability, or external validity, is examined by considering the characteristics of the population studied, the impact of the research environment, and the subject selection process, ensuring that the findings can be applied to broader contexts and populations. The assignment references a study by Khorana et al. (2019) to illustrate these concepts, providing a practical context for understanding the evaluation of research in healthcare.

Running head: RESEARCH DESIGN 1
Research Design

RESEARCH DESIGN 2
Question 7
The validity of research involves the entire research concepts used and finds out whether
the results obtained meets the objectives of the study. Some of the characteristics that I would
consider to determine the validity of the research include time provided for experiment or data
collection, the instrument used in the research study, maturation and size of the population
studied. Valid research should have an appropriate time scale for the survey, suitable method
or methodology for collection of data, an appropriate instrument in carrying out the study and
appropriate sample size. For example, the article provided has an appropriate scale of 0 to 6
score; the time provided for the review is 180 days, which is necessary for the study. The
participants were 1080, and the methodologies used are multicentre, randomized, and double-
blind controlled trial to ensure the validity of the study (Khorana et al., 2019).
Question 8
The features that I will consider in the findings to determine if they are clinically significant is
a positive and noticeable improvement to a patient. For example, the stud provided has clinical
significance as the findings show a low incidence of major bleeding among high-risk
ambulatory patients with cancer (Khorana et al., 2019).
On the other hand, characteristics that will tell whether the finding is statistically significant is
the unlikely of occurrence by a change that is the p-value. For example, if the p-value of the
results is less or equal to the set significance level, the study will be considered statically
significant. In most cases, the significance level is set to 0.005.

RESEARCH DESIGN 3
Question 9
External validity involves the extent to which research findings and conclusions can be
generalized based on the sample of the population. Some characteristics that I would consider
to determine the generalizability of the study include the aspects of the population studies, the
impacts of the research surrounding, and the interaction of the subject selection.
On the population characteristics apply in that if the study lacks external validity, the outcome
and conclusion cannot be fitting to the subject of other groups other than the group that has
been studied. For example, the study article provided is generalizable as it involves all the
participants with high-risk ambulatory cancer (Khorana et al., 2019).
References

RESEARCH DESIGN 4
Khorana, A. A., Soff, G. A., Kakkar, A. K., Vadhan-Raj, S., Riess, H., Wun, T., ... & O’Reilly,
E. M. (2019). Rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis in high-risk ambulatory patients with
cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(8), 720-728.