Abstract

The mixed-method research design, Q methodology, was integrated into a required baccalaureate research course and then used to measure learning outcomes from teh class. Four major viewpoints emerged: General Confusion (N=6), Seeing Usefulness (N=3), Valuing Practice (N=8), and Ambivalence to Research (N=11).

Author Details

Angela Opsahl, DNP; Debbie Judge, DNP -- School of Nursing, Indiana University Purdue University, Columbus, Indiana, USA; Desiree Hensel, PhD, RN, PCNS-BC, CNE, School of Nursing, Curry College, Milton, Massachusetts, USA

Sigma Membership

Alpha

Lead Author Affiliation

Indiana University-Purdue University Columbus, Columbus, Indiana, USA

Type

Poster

Format Type

Text-based Document

Research Approach

N/A

Keywords:

Nursing Research, Program Evalution, Q Methodology

Conference Name

Nursing Education Research Conference 2018

Conference Host

Sigma Theta Tau International,National League for Nursing

Conference Location

Washington, DC, USA

Conference Year

2018

Rights Holder

All rights reserved by the author(s) and/or publisher(s) listed in this item record unless relinquished in whole or part by a rights notation or a Creative Commons License present in this item record.

All permission requests should be directed accordingly and not to the Sigma Repository.

All submitting authors or publishers have affirmed that when using material in their work where they do not own copyright, they have obtained permission of the copyright holder prior to submission and the rights holder has been acknowledged as necessary.

Review Type

Abstract Review Only: Reviewed by Event Host

Acquisition

Proxy-submission

Additional Files

download (829 kB)

Share

COinS
 

Teaching Q methodology to baccalaureate nursing students

Washington, DC, USA

The mixed-method research design, Q methodology, was integrated into a required baccalaureate research course and then used to measure learning outcomes from teh class. Four major viewpoints emerged: General Confusion (N=6), Seeing Usefulness (N=3), Valuing Practice (N=8), and Ambivalence to Research (N=11).