Can evaluation studies benefit from triangulation? A case study

International Journal of Medical Informatics

Volumn 70, Issue 2-3, 2003, Pages 237-248

  Ammenwerth, Elske ^a   Iller, Carola ^b   Mansmann, Ulrich ^c  

^a University for Medical Informatics Technology Tyrol   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Evaluation methods; Evaluation studies; Interviews; Medical informatics; Nursing; Qualitative research; Triangulation

Indexed keywords

COMPUTERS; MEDICAL COMPUTING; TRIANGULATION;

NURSING DOCUMENTATION;

HEALTH CARE;

ANALYSIS; ARTICLE; CASE STUDY; COMPUTER; DECISION MAKING; EVALUATION; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; NURSING; PHENOMENOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TECHNIQUE; THEORY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 0041565058     PISSN: 13865056     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1386-5056(03)00059-5     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Friedman C., Wyatt J.C. Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics. 1997;Springer, New York.
2. Achtmeyer C.E., Payne T.H., Anawalt B.D. Computer order entry system decreased use of sliding scale insulin regimens. Methods Inf. Med. 41:(4):2002;277-281.
3. Cimino J.J., Patel V.L., Kushniruk A.W. The patient clinical information system (PatCIS): technical solutions for and experience with giving patients access to their electronic medical records. Int. J. Med. Inf. 68:(1-3):2002;113-127.
4. Herbig B., Bussing A. The care information system PIK - the fit between user and system. Methods Inf. Med. 41:(2):2002;125-133.
5. Hwang J.I., Park H.A., Bakken S. Impact of a physician's order entry (POE) system on physicians' ordering patterns and patient length of stay. Int. J. Med. Inf. 65:(3):2002;213-223.
6. Junger A., Benson M., Quinzio L., Michel A., Sciuk G., Brammen D., Marquardt K., Hempelmann G. An anesthesia information management system (AIMS) as a tool for controlling resource management of operating rooms. Methods Inf. Med. 41:(1):2002;81-85.
7. Rigby M. Evaluation: 16 powerful reasons why not to do it -and 6 Over-riding imperatives. Patel V., Rogers R., Haux R. Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress on Medical Informatics (Medinfo). 2001;1198-1202 IOS Press, Amsterdam.
8. Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applications - some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. Int. J. Inform. Med. 64:2001;39-56.
9. Brender J. Trends in assessment of IT-based solutions in healthcare and recommendations for the future. Int. J. Med. Inf. 52:(1-3):1998;217-227.
10. Heathfield H., Buchan I. Current evaluations of information technology in health care are often inadequate. Br. Med. J. 313:(7063):1996;1008.
11. Tierney W., Overhage J., McDonald C. A plea for controlled trials in medical informatics. JAMIA. 1:(4):1994;353-355.
12. Forsythe D.E., Buchanan B.G. Broadening our approach to evaluating medical information systems. Clayton P. 15th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. 1992;8-12 McGraw-Hill, New York.
13. Moehr J.R. Evaluation: salvation or nemesis of medical informatics. Comput. Biol. Med. 32:(3):2002;113-125.
14. Berg M. The contextual nature of medical information. Int. J. Med. Inform. 56:1999;51-60.
15. Aarts J., Peel V. Using a descriptive model of change when implementing large scale clinical information systems to identify priorities for further research. Int. J. Med. Inform. 56:1999;43-50.
16. Bortz J., Döring N. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler [Research Methods and Evaluation for Human and Social Scientists]. 2002;Springer, Berlin.
17. Mayring M. Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung [Introduction to Qualitative Social Research]. 1993;Psychologie-Verlag-Union, Weinheim.
18. Greene J., McClintock C. Triangulation in evaluation: design and analysis issues. Eval. Rev. 9:(5):1985;523-545.
19. Knafl K., Breitmayer B. Triangulation in qualitative research: issues of conceptual clarity and purpose. Morse J. A Contemporary Dialogue. 1991;226-239 Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
20. Begley C.M. Using triangulation in nursing research. J. Adv. Nurs. 24:(1):1996;122-128.
21. N. Denzin, Strategies of multiple triangulation, in: N. Denzin (Ed.), The Research Act. A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, Aldine, Chicago, 1970, 297-331.
22. Cowman S. Triangulation: a means of reconciliation in nursing research. J. Adv. Nurs. 18:(5):1993;788-792.
23. Sim J., Sharp K. A critical appraisal of the role of triangulation in nursing research. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 35:(1-2):1998;23-31.
24. Barbour R.S. The case for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in health services research. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy. 4:(1):1999;39-43.
25. Bond K.C., Valente T.W., Kendall C. Social network influences on reproductive health behaviors in urban northern Thailand. Soc. Sci. Med. 49:(12):1999;1599-1614.
26. Burr G. Contextualizing critical care family needs through triangulation: an Australian study. Intensive Crit. Care. Nurs. 14:(4):1998;161-169.
27. Fitzmaurice J.B., Nicholas P.K., Martin M., Chase S., Ford-Carleton P., Estey G., Zielstorff R., Barnett O. Evaluation of a problem-based access knowledge system using triangulation methods. Greenes R., Peterson H., Protti D. Medinfo 95 - Proceedings of the eighth World Congress on Medical Informatics. 1995;1059-1063 North Holland, Amsterdam.
28. Kaplan B. Addressing organizational issues into the evaluation of medical systems. JAMIA. 4:(2):1997;94-101.
29. Kaplan B., Duchon D. Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in information systems research: a case study. MIS Quart. 12:(4):1988;571-586.
30. Heathfield H., Pitty D., Hanka R. Evaluating information technology in health care: barriers and challenges. Br. Med. J. 316:1998;1959-1961.
31. O'Connell B., Myers H., Twigg D., Entriken F. Documenting and communicating patient care: are nursing care plans redundant. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 6:2000;276-280.
32. Allan J., Englebright J. Patient-centered documentation - an effective and efficient use of clinical information systems. J. Nurs. Adm. 30:(2):2000;90-95.
33. Ammenwerth E., Mansmann U., Iller C., Eichstädter R. Factors affecting and affected by user acceptance of computer-based nursing documentation: results of a two-year study. JAMIA. 10:(1):2003;69-84.
34. Ammenwerth E., Eichstädter R., Happek T., Haux R., Hoppe B., Kandert M., Kutscha A., Luther G., Mahler C., Mansmann U., Pohl U. Evaluation of Computer-Based Documentation on Four Wards - Final Report (in German). 2001;Department of Medical Informatics, Heidelberg.
35. Ammenwerth E., Kutscha U., Kutscha A., Mahler C., Eichstädter R., Haux R. Nursing process documentation systems in clinical routine-prerequisites and experiences. Int. J. Med. Inform. 64:(2-3):2001;187-200.
36. Ammenwerth E., Eichstädter R., Haux R., Pohl U., Rebel S., Ziegler S. A randomized evaluation of a computer-based nursing documentation system. Methods Inf. Med. 40:(2):2001;61-68.
37. Lindsey E., Hartrick G. Health-promoting nursing practice: the demise of the nursing process. J. Adv. Nurs. 23:(1):1996;106-112.
38. Bowman G., Thompson D., Sutton T. Nurses' attitudes towards the nursing process. J. Adv. Nurs. 8:(2):1983;125-129.
39. Nickell G., Pinto J. The computer attitude scale. Comp. Hum. Behav. 2:1986;301-306.
40. Lowry C. Nurses' attitudes toward computerised care plans in intensive care. Part 2. Nurs. Crit. Care. 10:1994;2-11.
41. J. Chin, Development of a tool measuring user satisfaction of the human-computer interface, in: Chi'88 Conference Proceedings: Human factors in Computing, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 1988, pp. 213-218.
42. Ohmann C., Boy O., Yang Q., Eich H.P. Evaluierung der Benutzerzufriedenheit mit einem Krankenhaus-Informations system: theoretische aspekte und klinische anwendung. Muche R., Büchele G., Harder D., et al. Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie-GMDS. 1997;31-34 MMV Medizin Verlag, München.
43. Ammenwerth E., Iller C., Eichstädter R., Hoppe B., Kandert M., Luther G., Mahler C. Influencing factors on the acceptance of a nursing documentation system (in German). 2003;University for Health Informatics and Technology Tyrol, Innsbruck, Publication Series No. 2.
44. N. Lorenzi, R. Riley, Stress and Change Management in Implementing Health Informatics in N. Lorenzi, R. Riley, Organizational Aspects of Health Informatics-Managing Technological Change, Springer, New York, 1995, 19-34.
45. Lewin K. Frontiers in group dynamics: concepts, methods, and reality of social sciences: Social equalization and social change. Hum. Relations. 1:1947;5-14.
46. Davis F. User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int. J. Man-Machine Stud. 38:1993;475-487.
47. Goodhue D. Understanding user evaluations of information systems. Manage. Sci. 41:(12):1995;1827-1844.
48. Campbell D., Fiske D. Convergent and discriminant validity by the multi-trait, multi-method matrix. Psychol. Bull. 56:1959;81-105.
49. Mitchell E. Mulitple triangulation: a methodology for nursing science. Adv. Nurs. Science. 8:(3):1986;18-26.