推论统计与护理研究中非随机抽样的缺陷。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Patricia A Zrelak
{"title":"推论统计与护理研究中非随机抽样的缺陷。","authors":"Patricia A Zrelak","doi":"10.1097/NNR.0000000000000868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Inferential statistics are foundational tools in health and nursing research. However, their misuse-particularly when applied to nonrandomized samples-is widespread and has serious implications for the integrity of science and evidence-based nursing practice.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the consequences of performing inferential statistical analysis on nonrandomized samples and provide guidance on alternative approaches when random sampling is not feasible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This paper synthesizes evidence from statistical theory, research methodology, and nursing literature to describe the assumptions of inferential statistics and the biases introduced by nonrandomized sampling. Alternatives such as nonparametric tests, bootstrapping, and descriptive statistics are also described.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Violating statistical test assumptions, such as random sampling and independence, can lead to misleading p-values, invalid confidence intervals, and incorrect generalizations. Systemic factors contributing to misuse include institutional pressures, growing publication options, and insufficient statistical training.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Inferential statistics must be grounded in proper sampling methods. Researchers should avoid overgeneralization from biased samples, use alternative analytical approaches where appropriate, and clearly disclose methodological limitations. Reform in nursing education and publication standards is critical to maintaining the validity and trustworthiness of nursing science.</p>","PeriodicalId":49723,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inferential Statistics and the Pitfalls of Nonrandomized Sampling in Nursing Research.\",\"authors\":\"Patricia A Zrelak\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/NNR.0000000000000868\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Inferential statistics are foundational tools in health and nursing research. However, their misuse-particularly when applied to nonrandomized samples-is widespread and has serious implications for the integrity of science and evidence-based nursing practice.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the consequences of performing inferential statistical analysis on nonrandomized samples and provide guidance on alternative approaches when random sampling is not feasible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This paper synthesizes evidence from statistical theory, research methodology, and nursing literature to describe the assumptions of inferential statistics and the biases introduced by nonrandomized sampling. Alternatives such as nonparametric tests, bootstrapping, and descriptive statistics are also described.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Violating statistical test assumptions, such as random sampling and independence, can lead to misleading p-values, invalid confidence intervals, and incorrect generalizations. Systemic factors contributing to misuse include institutional pressures, growing publication options, and insufficient statistical training.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Inferential statistics must be grounded in proper sampling methods. Researchers should avoid overgeneralization from biased samples, use alternative analytical approaches where appropriate, and clearly disclose methodological limitations. Reform in nursing education and publication standards is critical to maintaining the validity and trustworthiness of nursing science.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49723,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nursing Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nursing Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000868\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000868","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:推论统计学是卫生和护理研究的基础工具。然而,它们的误用——特别是当应用于非随机样本时——是普遍存在的,并且严重影响了科学的完整性和循证护理实践。目的:检验对非随机样本进行推理统计分析的结果,并在随机抽样不可行的情况下为替代方法提供指导。方法:综合统计学理论、研究方法和护理文献的证据,描述推论统计的假设和非随机抽样引入的偏差。还描述了非参数测试、自举和描述性统计等替代方法。结果:违反统计检验假设,如随机抽样和独立性,可能导致误导性的p值,无效的置信区间和不正确的概括。造成误用的系统性因素包括体制压力、出版物选择增多和统计培训不足。讨论:推论统计必须以适当的抽样方法为基础。研究人员应避免从有偏差的样本中过度概括,在适当的情况下使用替代分析方法,并清楚地披露方法的局限性。护理教育和出版标准的改革对维护护理科学的有效性和可信度至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Inferential Statistics and the Pitfalls of Nonrandomized Sampling in Nursing Research.

Background: Inferential statistics are foundational tools in health and nursing research. However, their misuse-particularly when applied to nonrandomized samples-is widespread and has serious implications for the integrity of science and evidence-based nursing practice.

Objective: To examine the consequences of performing inferential statistical analysis on nonrandomized samples and provide guidance on alternative approaches when random sampling is not feasible.

Methods: This paper synthesizes evidence from statistical theory, research methodology, and nursing literature to describe the assumptions of inferential statistics and the biases introduced by nonrandomized sampling. Alternatives such as nonparametric tests, bootstrapping, and descriptive statistics are also described.

Results: Violating statistical test assumptions, such as random sampling and independence, can lead to misleading p-values, invalid confidence intervals, and incorrect generalizations. Systemic factors contributing to misuse include institutional pressures, growing publication options, and insufficient statistical training.

Discussion: Inferential statistics must be grounded in proper sampling methods. Researchers should avoid overgeneralization from biased samples, use alternative analytical approaches where appropriate, and clearly disclose methodological limitations. Reform in nursing education and publication standards is critical to maintaining the validity and trustworthiness of nursing science.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Nursing Research
Nursing Research 医学-护理
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
102
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing Research is a peer-reviewed journal celebrating over 60 years as the most sought-after nursing resource; it offers more depth, more detail, and more of what today''s nurses demand. Nursing Research covers key issues, including health promotion, human responses to illness, acute care nursing research, symptom management, cost-effectiveness, vulnerable populations, health services, and community-based nursing studies. Each issue highlights the latest research techniques, quantitative and qualitative studies, and new state-of-the-art methodological strategies, including information not yet found in textbooks. Expert commentaries and briefs are also included. In addition to 6 issues per year, Nursing Research from time to time publishes supplemental content not found anywhere else.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信