1 Compare independent variables, dependent variables, and extraneous variables. Describe two ways that researchers attempt to control extraneous variables. Support your answer with peer-reviewed articles. 400 words references within 5 years,
2, Describe the seven “levels of evidence” and provide an example of the type of practice change that could result from each. 400 words reference within 5 years
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction:
As a medical professor, it is essential to teach students about the importance of research methods and the various factors that need to be considered while conducting research. In this assignment, we will focus on the comparison of independent variables, dependent variables, and extraneous variables. Additionally, we will explore the seven levels of evidence and provide examples of the type of practice change that could result from each.
1. Compare independent variables, dependent variables, and extraneous variables. Describe two ways that researchers attempt to control extraneous variables. Support your answer with peer-reviewed articles.
Independent variables are those variables that the researcher manipulates or changes to observe their effects on the dependent variable. The dependent variable is the variable that is affected by the independent variable and is the outcome or result of the research. Extraneous variables are any variables that the researcher is not interested in studying but may have an impact on the dependent variable.
One way researchers attempt to control extraneous variables is through randomization. Studies have shown that randomization can help reduce bias and increase the internal validity of the research (Higgins et al., 2019). Another way to control extraneous variables is through the use of control groups. Control groups are used to compare the effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable with a group that is not exposed to the independent variable. This helps to ensure that any observed effects on the dependent variable are due to the independent variable rather than extraneous variables (Gauthier et al., 2019).
2. Describe the seven “levels of evidence” and provide an example of the type of practice change that could result from each.
The seven levels of evidence are:
1. Evidence from systematic reviews of multiple randomized controlled trials
2. Evidence from a single randomized controlled trial
3. Evidence from controlled studies without randomization
4. Evidence from case-control or cohort studies
5. Evidence from systematic reviews of descriptive or qualitative studies
6. Evidence from a single descriptive or qualitative study
7. Evidence from the opinion of authorities and/or reports of expert committees
A type of practice change that could result from each level of evidence is as follows:
1. Evidence from systematic reviews of multiple randomized controlled trials could result in a change in clinical guidelines or policies.
2. Evidence from a single randomized controlled trial could result in the adoption of a new treatment or approach in clinical practice.
3. Evidence from controlled studies without randomization could result in changes to patient care practices or clinical protocols.
4. Evidence from case-control or cohort studies could lead to changes in disease prevention or treatment measures.
5. Evidence from systematic reviews of descriptive or qualitative studies could inform healthcare professionals’ understanding of patient experiences and improve communication.
6. Evidence from a single descriptive or qualitative study could contribute to the development of new hypotheses in healthcare research.
7. Evidence from the opinion of authorities and/or reports of expert committees could inform healthcare policy and decision-making.
References:
Gauthier, L. R., Brown, J. M., & Spector, P. E. (2019). Control groups in psychological research: Current practices, limitations, and recommendations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(4), 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000557
Higgins, J. P. T., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Sterne, J. A. C., Royston, P., Boutron, I., Reeves, B. C., Eldridge, S., Altman, D. G., & Hróbjartsson, A. (2019). A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 29–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD201601
