Limited by our limitations
Tóm tắt
Study limitations represent weaknesses within a research design that may influence outcomes and conclusions of the research. Researchers have an obligation to the academic community to present complete and honest limitations of a presented study. Too often, authors use generic descriptions to describe study limitations. Including redundant or irrelevant limitations is an ineffective use of the already limited word count. A meaningful presentation of study limitations should describe the potential limitation, explain the implication of the limitation, provide possible alternative approaches, and describe steps taken to mitigate the limitation. This includes placing research findings within their proper context to ensure readers do not overemphasize or minimize findings. A more complete presentation will enrich the readers’ understanding of the study’s limitations and support future investigation.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Connelly LM. Limitation Section. Medsurg Nurs. 2013;22:325–36.
Puhan M, Akl E, Bryant D, Zie F, Apolone G, ter Riet G. Discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies-the need for more transparency. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10(23) https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-10-23.
Wang M, Bolland M, Grey A. Reporting of limitations of observational research. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175:1571–2.
Ringsted C, Hodges B, Scherpbier A. The research compass: an introduction to research in medical education: AMEE guide no. 56. Med Teach. 2001;33:695–709.
Norman G. Research in medical education: three decades of progress. BMJ. 2002;324:1560–2.
Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42:128–33.
Gruppen LD. Is medical education research ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ research? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008;13:1–2.
Price JH, Murnan J. Research limitations and the necessity of reporting them. Am J Health Educ. 2004;35:66–7.
Greener S. Research limitations: the need for honesty and common sense. Inter Learn Environ. 2018;26:567–8.
Bunniss S, Kelly DR. Research paradigms in medical education research. Med Educ. 2010;44:358–66.
Adler ES, Clark R. How it’s done: an invitation to social research. 2nd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning; 2003.
Drotar D. Thoughts on establishing research significance and preserving scientific integrity. J Pediatr Psychol. 2008;33:1–5.
Chasan-Taber L. Writing Dissertation Proposals and Grants: epidemiology, preventative medicine, and biostatistics. 1st ed. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group; 2014.
Anesley TM. The discussion section: your closing argument. Clin Chem. 2010;56:1671–4.
Eva K, Lingard L. What’s next? A guiding question for educators engaged in educational research. Med Educ. 2008;42:752–4.
Ioannidis JPA. Limitations are not properly acknowledged in the scientific literature. J Clinc Epid. 2007;60:324–9.
Lingard L. The art of limitations. Perspect Med Educ. 2015;4:136–7.
Creswell JW. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2003.
Lavrakas PJ. Encylopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2008.
Kenrick DT, Neuberg SL, Social Psychology CRB. Unraveling the mystery. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 2002.
Nederhof A. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: a review. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1985;15:263–80.
Krumpal I. Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual Quant Intern J Method. 2013;47:2025–47.
Segwick P, Greenwood N. Understanding the hawthorne Effec. BMJ. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4672.
Law J. A dictionary of business and management (Oxford quick reference). 6th ed. Oxford: University Press; 2009.
Curran-Deverett D, Milgrom H. Post-hoc data analysis: benefits and limitations. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;13:223–4.
Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:619–25.
Bagg A. Discussion: the heart of the paper. Indian Pediatr. 2016;53:901–4.
Drotar D. How to write an effective results and discussion for the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. J Pediatr Psychol. 2009;34:339–43.
Olsen R. Self-selection bias. In: Lavrakas PJ, editor. Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2008. pp. 809–10.
Babbie E. The practice of social research. 8th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company; 1998.
Resnik DB, Shamoo AE. Reproducibility and research integrity. Account Res. 2017;24:116–23.
Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: The strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med. 2001;76:889–96.