This course is a PhD-level course in Research Methods. Topics include developing and measuring constructs, sampling strategies, generalizability of findings. The research skills discussed in this course are transferable across a variety of academic disciplines.
Original Description:
Original Title
How to - Critiquing and Reviewing Empirical Research
This course is a PhD-level course in Research Methods. Topics include developing and measuring constructs, sampling strategies, generalizability of findings. The research skills discussed in this course are transferable across a variety of academic disciplines.
This course is a PhD-level course in Research Methods. Topics include developing and measuring constructs, sampling strategies, generalizability of findings. The research skills discussed in this course are transferable across a variety of academic disciplines.
PhD Seminar (16:545:620:01) Rutgers University, School of Management and Labor Relations Paula M. Caligiuri, Ph.D Fall 2007
Required Readings: Textbook: Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis issues by Thomas D. Cook and Donald T. Campbell, 1979, ISBN 10:0395307902; 13:978- 0395307908.
Additional Readings: These articles are listed in the Course Outline section of the syllabus and are available on-line through the Rutgers Library Reserves. To access these articles you will need to do the following: - Go to the URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu - Log-in on the upper left of the page - Roll your cursor over Find Reserves on the left side of the page - Click the word Reserves where it says Connect to: Reserves - Type caligiuri and then click instructor
Class Time and Location: Class meets in 106 Levin on Wednesdays Class time is from 1:00 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.
Course Summary: This course is a PhD-level course in Research Methods. Topics will include study designs (experimentation, quasi-experimentation, etc.), developing and measuring constructs (reliability, validity, etc.), sampling strategies, generalizability of findings, quantitative and qualitative methodologies and the like. While the research skills discussed in this course are transferable across a variety of academic disciplines, many examples will be from the human resource management and labor relations fields. This course will be interactive. I fully expect a high level of class participation in the form of you asking and answering questions and contributing fully during the class discussions. I will do my best to provide an environment where you should feel comfortable asking questions and offering your opinions. This method of instruction puts responsibility on you to be prepared for class.
PhD Seminar - Research Methods - 2 Course Outline: Date Topics Covered Assignment Due Readings September 5 Course Introduction: o Theory o Research o Hypothesis Testing For your future reference: Cook & Campbell Chapter 1
Sutton, R., & Staw, B. (1995). What a theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371-384.
Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advancement of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18: 599-620.
Weick, K. (1995). What theory is Not, Theorizing is, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 385-390.
Daft R. L., (1983). Learning the Craft of Organizational Research, Academy of Management Review, 8 (4) pp. 539-546.
Whetton, D.A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, 490-495.
September 12
Measures: o Operationalization o Measuring Constructs o Level(s) of Analysis
Measurement Assignment: Identify Measures for a Selected Construct
Klein, K., Dansereau, F. and Hall, R.. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19: 195-229.
Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155-174.
Vandenberg, R.J. (2006). Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Where, pray tell, did they get this idea? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 194-201.
PhD Seminar - Research Methods - 3
September 19
Design: o Experimentation o Quasi- Experimentation o Field Research o Exploratory Research
Design Assignment: Testing Causal Hypotheses
Cook & Campbell Chapters 2 & 3
Williams, L.J., & Podsakoff, P.M. (1989). Longitudinal field methods for studying reciprocal relationships in OB research: Toward improved causal analysis. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 247-293.
Meyer, B. (1995), Natural and Quasi-Experiments in Economics, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, (13:2), pp. 151-161.
Bartunek, J.M., Bobko, P., & VenKatraman, N. (1993). Toward innovation and diversity in management research methods. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1362-1373.
Schmitt, N. (1994). Method bias: The importance of theory and measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 393-398.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., & Brett, J.M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 233-244.
Greenberg, J., & Tomlinson, E.C. (2004). Situated experiments in organizations: Transplanting the lab to the field. Journal of Management, 30(5), 703-724.
September 26
Sample: o Statistical Power & Effect Size o Sampling Strategies o Randomization o Generalizability o Response Rates
Sample Assignment: Inferring Generalizability across Samples
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
Cowles, M., & Davis, C. (1982). On the origins of the .05 level of statistical significance. American Psychologist, 37, 553-558.
Carlson, K.D., & Schmidt, F.L. (1999). Impact of experimental design on effect size: Findings from the research literature on training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 851 862.
Tomanskovic-Devey, D., Leiter, J., & Thompson, S. (1994). Organizational Survey Nonresponse. Administrative Science Quarterly. 39; 439-457.
Berk, R. (1983). An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American Sociological Review, 48: 386-399.
PhD Seminar - Research Methods - 4
October 3
Survey Research: o Scale Development o Reliability & Validity o MTMM
Scale Measurement Assignment: Developing a Scale to Test a Construct
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1: 104-121
Peter, J.P. (1979). Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 6-17.
Cortina, J. (1993). What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 98-104.
Peter, J. P. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 133-145.
Campion, M.A. (1993). Article review checklist: A criterion checklist for reviewing research articles in applied psychology. Personnel Psychology, 46, 705-718.
October 10
Survey Research (continued): Qualtrics Demo Electronic Surveys
o Common Method Bias o Social Desirability
Archival Data and Secondary Data
Critique #1 Due: Experimental Design
Podsakoff, P. and Organ, D. (1986). Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Management, 12: 531-544
Feldman, J.M., & Lynch, J.C. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 421 435.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y, and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 88, 5, 879-903.
Doty, D.H., and Glick, W.H. (1998). Common Methods Bias: Does Common Methods Variance Really Bias Results? Organizational Research Methods, 1(4): 374-406.
October 17
Mid-Term Exam
PhD Seminar - Research Methods - 5
October 24
Practical Challenges for Data Collection: o Gaining Access o Participant Recruitment o Missing Data & Outliers
Cook & Campbell Chapter 8
Hosseini, J.C., and Armacost, R.L. 1993. Gathering Sensitive Data in Organizations. American Behavioral Scientist, 36(4):443-471.
To prepare for this class, please interview your advisor or one of your professors using the following interview protocol*: 1. Given your academic discipline and area of expertise, what practical advice do you have for new PhDs who will be conducting research in IR and/or HR? 2. What have been some of your greatest challenges in gaining access to research or data collection sites for the types of studies you do? How did you overcome those challenges? What are the key lessons I should share with my classmates from your experiences in gaining access to research sites? 3. Would you share a critical incident or two that happened while conducting the research that resulted in one of your own favorite articles? What are the key lessons I can share with my classmates from that experience? (After the interview, for context, read the professors article that he or she mentioned.) *Of course you are welcome to write our own questions, but I want you to have the conversation around these themes the realities or practical challenges of research. Please be prepared to talk about each of these questions in an open discussion.
October 31
Qualitative Methods: Guest Lecturer, Professor Sharon Ryan from the Graduate School Of Education at Rutgers
TBA
Eisenhardt, K. M. & Graebner, M.E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50:25-32
Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50:20-24
Lee, A.S. (1991). Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organization Science, 2: 342-365
November 7
Qualitative Methods (continued): Guest Lecturer, Professor Sharon Ryan from GSE
Guest Speaker, Dr. Mary Gatta from the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers
TBA
PhD Seminar - Research Methods - 6
November 14
Professional Issues of Academic Researchers:
o Being a Peer Reviewer o Working with Collaborators o Ethical Issues in Research
Critique #2 Due: Survey Research Design
Daft, R. L., (1985), Why I recommended that your manuscript be rejected and what you can do about it, in Publishing in Organizational Sciences, Ed. L. L. Cummings & P. J. Frost. Richard D. Irwin Inc.
Fiske, D.W., & Campbell, D.T. (1992). Citations do not solve problems. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 393-395.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological research. Psychological Science, 5: 127-134. The Academy of Management code of ethical conduct. Found on the Academy of Management website Berado, F., (1989). Scientific Norms and Research Publication Issues and Professional Ethics, Sociological Inquiry 59:3, 249-266. Kerr, N.L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2 (3): 196-217.
November 21
No Class Happy Thanksgiving
November 27 and 28
From Theory to Research: Strategic HRM Joint Project and Presentations
These sessions will be conducted jointly with SMLRs Strategic HRM Theory course (taught by Mark Huselid). Pairs of students (one from each course) will work together to develop an integrated research study proposal, which draws on the materials from the Strategic HRM Theory course and our Research Methods course. The deliverable of this exercise will be a 30 minute presentation to both classes. More information, including group assignments and specific presentation dates, will be provided in class.
December 5
Presenting Research in an Academic Context
Research Presentations
December 12
December 19
Final Exam
PhD Seminar - Research Methods - 7 Grading: 15% Participation 10% Two Research Critiques 10% Four Assignments 25% Midterm Exam 15% Research Presentation 25% Final Exam
Participation: To get the maximum points for participation I expect: o Fully participate in class discussion (i.e., read before you come to class so you are able to contribute to the class). o Complete all assignments and be prepared to discuss/present o Attend class o Fully participate in the combined Strategic HRM/Research Methods classes (and preparation for those classes) on November 27 and 28.
Research Critiques: Each critique will be a 1-2 page (single spaced) review of a pre- selected manuscripts (to be distributed in class). Critiques should be written as though you were the peer reviewing this manuscript for a journal only with a limited focus on the methodological issues (design, sample, procedures, and measures).
Assignments: These assignments will be due on the date indicated on the syllabus and will be handed out one week before they are due.
Midterm: The midterm will be an application of the concepts and skills you have learned in the first half of the class.
Research Presentation: You will give a fifteen-minute research presentation, similar to the way you would present at an academic conference. Details on this research presentation will be given in class.
Final: This will be a comprehensive final exam incorporating concepts from the entire course. The final will test your deeper understanding of research methods and will test how well you are able to integrate the material covered in the class.
PhD Seminar - Research Methods - 8 Additional Optional Readings
Science, Theories, and Research Davis, Murray S. 1971. Thats interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of Social Science, 1: 309-344. Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1993. Barriers to the advance of organizational science: paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18: 599- 620. Wagner, David G., and Joseph Berger. 1985. Do sociological theories grow? American Journal of Sociology, 90: 4: 697-728. Van Maanen, John. 1995. Style as theory. Organization Science, 6:133-143. Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1995. Mortality, reproducibility and the persistence of styles of theory, Organization Science, 6:681-686. Van Maanen, John. 1995. Fear and loathing in organization studies, Organization Science, 6:687-692. Weick, K. E. (1989), "Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination," Academy of Management Review, 14, 516-531 Bacharach, S. B., 1989, "Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation," Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 496-515.
Measures House, Robert, Denise Rousseau and Melissa Thomas-Hunt. 1995. The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17: 71-114. Cappelli, Peter and Peter Sherer. 1991. The missing role of context in OB: The need for a meso-level approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13: 55-110. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. 1996. Measurement error in psychological research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios. Psychological Methods, 2: 199-223. Ganster, D.C., Hennessey, H.W., & Luthans, F. 1983. Social desirability response effects: Three alternative models. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 321-331. Simsek, Z., and Veiga, J.F. 2000. The Electronic Survey Technique: An Integration and Assessment. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1): 92-114 McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. 1997. Event studies in management research: Theoretical and empirical issues. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 626-657. Avolio, B.J., and Bass, B.M. Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management, 1991, 17(3): 571-587. Aiken, L. R. (1994). Some observations and recommendations concerning research methodology in the behavioral sciences. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 848-860.
Design and Methods (see also Additional Optional Books): Ilgen, Daniel. 1986. Laboratory Research: A Question of When, Not If. In E. Locke (ed.), Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings: Research Findings from Industrial-Organization Psychology, Organizational Behavior, and Human Resource
PhD Seminar - Research Methods - 9 Management. Lexington, MA: Lexington Press. Roth, P.L., and BeVier, C.A. 1998. Response Rates in HRM/OB Survey Research: Norms and Correlates, 1990-1994. Journal of Management, 24(1) 97-117. Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129-133. Mazen, A.M., Graf, L.A., Kellog, C.E., and Hemmasi, M. 1987. Statistical Power in Contemporary Management Research. Academy of Management Journal, 30(2), 369-380. Mitchell, T. R. (1985). An evaluation of the validity of correlational research conducted in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 10, 192-205. Stone-Romero, E.F., Weaver, A.E., & Glenar, J.L. (1995). Trends in Research Design and Data Analytic Strategies in Organization Research. Journal of Management, 21(1):141-157.
Survey Research (see also Additional Optional Books): Hinkin, Timothy R. 1995. A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations. Journal of Management. 21(5); 967-988. Campbell, Donald and Donald Fiske. 1959. Convergent and discriminant validations by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56: 81-105. Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A., III (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67-76. Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385- 392. Schmitt, N. (1994). Method bias: The importance of theory and measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 393-398. Howard, G. S. (1994). Why do people say nasty things about self-reports? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 399-404. Schmitt, N. & Stults, D. M. (1986). Methodology review: Analysis of multitraitmultimethod matrices. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 1-22.
Qualitative Research Salancik, Gerald. 1979. Field stimulation for organizational behavior research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 638-649. Lieberson, Stanley. 1991. Small Ns and big conclusions: An examination of the reasoning in comparative studies based on a small number of cases. Science Forces, 70: 307-320. Miles, Matthew B. 1979. Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 590-601. Jick, Todd. 1979. Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Practice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24: 602-611.
Selected Topics in Research Methods Mann, C. (1990). Meta-analysis in the breech. Science, 249, 476-480. Social Forces
PhD Seminar - Research Methods - 10 Guzzo, R.A., Jackson, S.E., & Katzell, R.A. (1987). Meta-analysis. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 407-442. Wanous, J. P., Sullivan, S. E., & Malinak, J. (1989). The role of judgment calls in metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 259-264. Williams, L.J., Edwards, J.R., & Vandenberg, R.J. (2003). Recent advances in causal modeling methods for organizational and management research. Journal of Management, 29(6), 903-936. Olkin, I. (1992). Reconcilable differences: Gleaning insight from conflicting scientific studies. The Sciences, 32, 4, 30-36. Oxman, A.D., & Guyatt, G.H. (1993). The science of reviewing research. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 703, 125-134. Schmidt, F.L. (1992). What do data really mean? Research findings, meta-analysis, and cumulative knowledge in psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 1173-1181. Ostroff, C. & Harrison, D.A. (1999). Meta-analysis, level of analysis, and best estimates of population correlations: Cautions for interpreting meta-analytic results in organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 260-270.
Professional Issues as Researchers Fiske, Donald W., and L. Fogg. 1990. But the reviewers are making different criticisms of my paper! Diversity and uniqueness in reviewer comments. American Psychologist, 45: 591-598. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological research. Psychological Science, 5, 127-134. Kurtines, W.M., Alvarez, M., & Azmitia, M. (1990). Science and morality: The role of values in science and the scientific study of moral phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 283-295.
PhD Seminar - Research Methods - 11 Additional Optional Books
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Babbie, E. (2007).The Basics of Social Research, 4 th edition. Wadsworth Publishing. American Psychological Association (2001). APA Publications Manual(5th edition). Washington, D.C.: Author. Schwab, D. P. (1999). Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th edition). Wadsworth. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin. Cahuc, Pierre and Andre Zylberberg (2004), Labor Economics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Schmitt, N.W., & Klimoski, R.J. (1991). Research methods in human resources management. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing. Sekaran, U. (1992). Research method for business (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Selltiz, C., Wrightsman, L.S., & Cook, S.W. (1976). Research methods in social relations. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Zeller, R., & Carmines, E. (1980). Measurement in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smithson, M. (2003). Confidence Intervals. Sage QASS Series, No. 140. Fowler, F.J. (2002). Survey Research Methods. (3rd Ed.) Sage (Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 1) (165 pp.) Kalton, G. (1983). Introduction to Survey Sampling. Sage QASS Series, no. 35. (96 pp.) Keicolt, K.J., & Nathan, L.E. (1985). Secondary Analysis of Survey Data. Sage QASS Series, no 53. (87 pp.) Spector, P.E. (1981). Research Designs. Sage QASS Series, no. 23 (80 pp.) Stewart, D.W., Kamins, D. W. (1993). Secondary Research. (2nd Ed). Sage (Applied Social Research Series, Vol. 4). (138 pp.) Kalton. G. (1983). Introduction to survey sampling. Sage QASS Series, no. 35. (96 pp.) Campbell, J.P., Daft, R.L., & Hulin, C.L. (1982). What to study: Generating and developing research questions. Beverly Hills: Sage. (167 pp.) Dunnette, M.D., & Hough, L. (Eds.) (1990). Handbook of I/O psychology, vol. 1. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
PhD Seminar - Research Methods - 12 Critiquing and Reviewing Empirical Research 1
I. Theory and Hypothesis Formulation 1. Was a significant problem or research question examined? 2. To what extent were the aims or purpose of the study delineated? 3. How well was the literature reviewed? integrated? 4. Were the concepts defined well? 5. How well were the hypotheses specified? Did they follow from 2, 3, and 4 above? Are they falsifiable? 6. Were boundaries and levels of analysis specified? included in hypotheses? 7. Are alternative hypotheses/theories specified?
II. Method 1. Was the study designed to answer the problem or research question? 2. Did the method follow from the theory/hypotheses? 3. Measurement A. What were the independent, dependent, and control (moderator,etc.) variables? B. For each variable: was it operationalized? justified? C. For each variable: what evidence for validity was given? D. For each variable: what evidence for reliability was given? E. Were the measures quantifiable? F. Was the unit or level of analysis specified and defined? Measures at appropriate level of analysis? 4. Sample A. Is the population and sample described? justified? B. What sampling procedure was used? C. To what extent was the population sampled appropriate for the research question? D. To what extent was the sample adequate to answer the research question? E. Where different/multiple units and levels of analysis specified sampled? 5. Study Design A. What specific design was used? B. Can it be diagramed? C. How were subjects/objects assigned to conditions (treatments)? D. How was comparability of groups established? E. To what extent were threats to internal validity controlled? F. To what extent were threats to external validity controlled? G. To what extent were threats to statistical conclusion validity controlled?
1 - These questions are based, in part, on Professor F. Yammarinos syllabus for a Management Course in Research Methodology offered at SUNY-Binghamton. Used with permission.
PhD Seminar - Research Methods - 13 H. To what extent were threats to construct validity controlled? I. Can the study be replicated? J. Are the manipulations adequate? K. To what extent is correlation distinguished from causation? L. Are various controls used? 6. Data Collection A. How were the data collected? at multiple/single level(s)? B. Was the technique appropriate? C. Were data coding explained adequately? D. Were data sources specified? multiple or single source(s)?
III. Analyses and Interpretation 1. How were the data analyzed? Was the technique appropriate? 2. What were the empirical findings? Descriptive statistics? 3. To what extent were the findings statistically and practically significance? Effect sizes reported? 4. To what extent and how were extraneous variables controlled? 5. Was a "treatment" effect of relationship among variables found? 6. What was the magnitude of the effect or relationship? 7. Were the "treatments" manipulated or delivered as intended? 8. Were multiple levels of analysis examined? How?
IV. Discussion 1. Interpretation A. Did the results provide support for a hypothesis/theory relative to other hypotheses/theories which were tested? B. Were the conclusions (verbal statements) consistent with the empirical findings (data)? C. Were there other extraneous variables which could lead to an alternative explanation? What were the alternative explanations? D. What is a way to control for the extraneous variable(s) involved? E. To what extent can the findings be generalized from the sample to population? from sample to theory? F. To what extent can the findings be generalized to other populations, "treatments", time periods, methods of measurement, or theory? G. Was statistical significance confused with practical and/or substantive significance? H. Were boundary conditions and levels of analysis accounted for? 2. Conclusions and Practical Implications A. Were the results integrated with a stream of scientific knowledge? B. Were the implications for research and practice stated? C. To what extent did the study contribute to scientific knowledge? Was there a value-added contribution to the literature? D. Was it well-organized, well-presented, well-written, etc.? E. Does it reach the target audience?
A Study To Evaluate The Effectiveness of Structured Teaching Program On Chemotherapy Administration in Terms of Knowledge Among Student Nurses in A Selected Institution at Hubballi
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology