Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Ethics in Research01:56

Ethics in Research

Today, scientists agree that good research is ethical in nature and is guided by a basic respect for human dignity and safety. However, this has not always been the case. Modern researchers must demonstrate that the research they perform is ethically sound.
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches01:23

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5% chance...
Statistical Significance01:37

Statistical Significance

Once data is collected from both the experimental and the control groups, a statistical analysis is conducted to find out if there are meaningful differences between the two groups. A statistical analysis determines how likely any difference found is due to chance (and thus not meaningful). In psychology, group differences are considered meaningful, or significant, if the odds that these differences occurred by chance alone are 5 percent or less. Stated another way, if we repeated this...
Decision Making: Traditional Method01:14

Decision Making: Traditional Method

The process of hypothesis testing based on the traditional method includes calculating the critical value, testing the value of the test statistic using the sample data, and interpreting these values.
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
Quality Assurance01:19

Quality Assurance

Quality assurance is the overarching term used to describe the activities employed to ensure the proper performance of a system. These activities can be classified into three categories: quality control, quality assessment, and internal corrective measures. Typically, these activities work cyclically: quality control is performed before and during the analysis, while quality assessment occurs during and after the investigation. Internal corrective measures are implemented based on the findings...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Clinical decision-making processes among graduate nurses, specialist nurses and nurse practitioners A collaborative international study.

International nursing review·2024
Same author

Differences and similarities in scope of practice between registered nurses and nurse specialists in emergency care: an interview study.

Scandinavian journal of caring sciences·2019
Same author

'Thinking outside the box': advanced geriatric nursing in primary health care in Scandinavia.

BMC nursing·2019
Same author

The Objective Structured Clinical Examination in evolving nurse practitioner education: A study of students' and examiners' experiences.

Nurse education in practice·2019
Same author

Discovering the ethos of serving in nursing leadership from the first half of the 20th century in three Nordic countries - an idea-historical research approach.

Scandinavian journal of caring sciences·2018
Same author

Love and Responsibility: A New Understanding of Leadership.

Nursing science quarterly·2018

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 16, 2026

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning
10:39

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Published on: August 29, 2025

Legitimizing basic research by evaluating quality.

Rika Levy-Malmberg1, Katie Eriksson

  • 1Abo Academy University, Vaasa, Finland. rika.levy-malmberg@abo.fi

Nursing Ethics
|January 22, 2010
PubMed
Summary

This study explores how ethical evaluation can legitimize caring science. It argues that developing an ethics-based evaluation theory is crucial for establishing the legitimacy and academic foundation of caring science research.

Area of Science:

  • * Philosophy of Science
  • * Ethics in Research
  • * Caring Science Studies

Background:

  • * The abstract concepts of legitimacy and evaluation in academic disciplines.
  • * The need for a moral framework to guide research quality assessment.
  • * The specific context of caring science as an emerging academic field.

Purpose of the Study:

  • * To examine the ethical underpinnings for developing a theory of evaluation in caring science.
  • * To explore how such a theory can establish the legitimacy of caring science.
  • * To foster a discussion on creating an ethics-based evaluation theory.

Main Methods:

  • * Philosophical analysis drawing on the ethics of Emmanuel Levinas and Martin Buber.
  • * Dialogical ideology as a mediating framework.

More Related Videos

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits
08:27

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Published on: September 27, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 16, 2026

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning
10:39

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Published on: August 29, 2025

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits
08:27

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Published on: September 27, 2019

  • * Conceptual exploration of responsibility, research justification, and legitimization.

    • Main Results:

    • * Ethical arguments can strengthen the link between evaluation and legitimacy.
    • * An evaluation theory can transform legitimacy from an abstract concept to a practical outcome.
    • * The act of evaluation can empower the foundational principles of caring science.

    Conclusions:

    • * Caring science has a moral responsibility to develop an evaluation theory.
    • * An ethics-based evaluation theory is key to legitimizing caring science.
    • * This study lays the groundwork for future development of such a theory.