2009
DOI: 10.3928/01484834-20090515-02
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation Tool for Clinical Nursing Textbooks: Bridging Content Analysis with Evidence

Abstract: One of the challenges nurse educators face is choosing a textbook that ensures congruency within the discipline of nursing, national and global health priorities, and the mission of the university. This article discusses the development of a tool that evaluates course content concurrently with evidence. The need to critically link content analysis and evidence within clinical nursing textbooks is deemed important given the discipline's imperative to prepare nurses to use the best evidence available for practic… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 18 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Third, by using the coding guide each reviewer independently content analyzed an assigned section of the curriculum and inserted the results on the coding forms. The research team met biweekly to discuss and agree about the process and classification of the codes (Cassata & Cox, 2009). A doctoral student coordinated all the processes, reviewed the accuracy of the codes and updated the coding guide as codes were added, modified, and/or deleted during the analysis process (Neuendorf, 2002).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Third, by using the coding guide each reviewer independently content analyzed an assigned section of the curriculum and inserted the results on the coding forms. The research team met biweekly to discuss and agree about the process and classification of the codes (Cassata & Cox, 2009). A doctoral student coordinated all the processes, reviewed the accuracy of the codes and updated the coding guide as codes were added, modified, and/or deleted during the analysis process (Neuendorf, 2002).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%