Factors to Consider in Selecting an Existing Instrument for Use in a Study

Data collection tools continue to be one of the most difficult components of the research process and a source of errors (Kaji, Schriger, & Green, 2014). The problem is exacerbated when old tools are used, as they subject studies to availability bias. Yet, issues about the selection process might be addressed by comparing the tools to aspects that can affect the validity of the investigations. One such aspect is the study’s complexity and length, with the goal of using an instrument that maximizes unique information while minimizing problems among respondents. Similarly, the selection process should ensure the data collection device is relevance to the objectives of the study. Another critical factor is sensitivity to change, where the instrument should acknowledge shifts in perceptions as the case of Likert-type scales. Besides ethical issues, the reliability and validity issues should also guide the choice of an existing tool.

How Does a Researcher Locate an Existing Instrument?

Bibliographic search is the first step in selecting an existing tool, a process that allows the researcher to document tools that explore the phenomenon of concern.

The second stage is assessing the usability of instruments, which is based on the extent of use by the scientific community as well as validity and reliability of the instruments.

The last stage entails contextualizing the tool, a step that primarily comprises matching it with research aspects such as research questions, ethical issues, time constraints, as well as budgetary elements (Bastos, Duquia, González-Chica, Mesa, & Bonamigo, 2014).

Part #2

CEDOCS Score for Emergency Department Overcrowding

The tool is used in determining the level of soaring in the ED. Its adoption has been influenced by its effectiveness in exploring both systemic/institutional issues as well as patient-level factors that culminate to overcrowding in the ED.

The data collection procedure will entail keying in inputs as informed by the tool and allowed it to determine the level of severity (score above level 4), and then document the underlying factors in an individualized approach.

Figure 1

A screenshot of the interface of the tool

References

Bastos, J., Duquia, R., González-Chica, D., Mesa, J., & Bonamigo, R. (2014). Field work I: selecting the instrument for data collection. Anais Brasileiros De Dermatologia, 89(6), 918-923. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/abd1806-4841.20143884

Kaji, A., Schriger, D., & Green, S. (2014). Looking Through the Retrospectoscope: Reducing Bias in Emergency Medicine Chart Review Studies. Annals Of Emergency Medicine, 64(3), 292-298. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.03.025