Looking at families in nursing research: Strategies for study design

Comprehensive Child and Adolescent Nursing

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 225-245

  Marcellus, Lenora ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b NONE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845725100     PISSN: 01460862     EISSN: 1521043X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01460860601115130     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. Acock, A., van Dulman, M., Allen, K., & Piercy, F. (2005). Contemporary and emerging research methods in studying families. In V. Bergstrom, A. Acock, K. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 59-90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Allen, K. (2000). A conscious and inclusive family studies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 4-17.
3. Artinian, N. (1991). Philosophy of science and family nursing theory development. In A.Whall & J. Fawcett (Eds.), Family theory development in nursing: State of the science and art (pp. 43-54). Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.
4. Astedt-Kurki, P., Paavilainen, E., & Lehti, K. (2001). Methodological issues in interviewing families in family nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(2), 288-293.
5. Banathy, B. (2004). The evolution of systems inquiry (International Society for Systems Science). Retrieved April 15, 2004, from http://www.isss.org/primer/003evsys.htm
6. Baumann, S. (2000). Family nursing: Theory-anemic, nursing theory-deprived. Nursing Science Quarterly, 13(4), 285-290.
7. Bell, L., Paul, D., St-Cyr-Tribble, D., & Goulet, C. (2000). Strategies to elicit and analyze relational family data. Journal of Family Nursing, 6(4), 380-399.
8. Bengtson, V., Acock, V., Allen, K., Dilworth-Anderson, P., & Klein, D. (2005). Theory and theorizing in family research: Puzzle building and puzzle solving. In V. Bengtson, A. Acock, K. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 3-33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Broome, M. (1998). Acutely ill children and their families: Implications for research, practice, and education. In M. Broome, K. Knafl, K. Pridham, & S. Feetham (Eds.), Children and families in health and illness (pp. 163-175). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11. Broome, M. (1999). Consent (assent) for research with pediatric patients. Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 5(2), 96-103.
12. Broome, M., Woodring, B., & O'Connor, S. (1996). Research priorities for nursing of children and their families: A delphi study. Journal of Pediatrics, 11(5), 281-287.
13. Browne, A. (2000). The potential contributions of critical social theory to nursing science. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 32(2), 35-55.
14. Canadian Nurses Association (1997). The family connection. Nursing Now: Issues and Trends in Canadian Nursing, 3, 1-4.
15. Cardwell, M. (1993). Family nursing research: A feminist critique. In S. Feetham, S. Meister, J. Bell, & C. Gillis (Eds.), The nursing of families: Theory, research, education, practice (pp. 200-210). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16. Chandros Hull, S., Glanz, K., Steffen, A., & Wilfond, B. (2004). Recruitment approaches for family studies: Attitudes of index patients and their relatives. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 26(4), 12-18.
17. Clarke, S. (1995). Characteristics of families: Implications for statistical analysis in family nursing research. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 27(1), 47-55.
18. Cody, W. (2000). Nursing frameworks to guide practice and research with families: Introductory remarks. Nursing Science Quarterly, 13(4), 277.
19. Connard, C., & Novick, R. (1996). The ecology of the family: A background, paper for a family-centered approach to education and social service delivery. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
20. Cseh-Szombathy, L., & Somlai, P. (1996). Family theory and research in Hungary. Marriage and Family Review, 22(3-4), 181-202.
21. Draper, T., & Marcos, A. (1990). Family variables: Conceptualization, measurement, and use. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22. Drummond, J., Kysela, G., McDonald, L., & Query, B. (2002). The Family Adaptation Model: Examination of dimensions and relations. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 34(1), 29-46.
23. Duvall, E. (1977). Marriage and family relationships (5th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
24. Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
25. Feetham, S. (1991). Conceptual and methodological issues in research of families. In A. Whall & J. Fawcett (Eds.), Family theory development in nursing: State of the science and art (pp. 55-68). Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.
26. Fisher, L., Kokes, R., Ransom, D., Phillips, S., & Rudd, P. (1985). Alternative strategies for creating relational family data. Family Process, 24, 213-224.
27. Friedman, M. (2003). Family nursing: Research, theory, and practice (5th ed). Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
28. Froman, R., & Schmitt, M. (2003). Thinking both inside and outside the box on measurement articles. Research in Nursing and Health, 26, 335-336.
29. Ganong, L. (1995). Current trends and issues in family nursing research. Journal of Family Nursing, 1(2), 171-206.
30. Gilgun, J. (1992). Definitions, methodologies, and methods in qualitative health research. In J. Gilgun, K. Daly, & G. Handel (Eds.), Qualitative methods in family research (pp. 22-40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31. Gillis, C. (1991). Family nursing research, theory, and practice. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 23, 19-22.
32. Grey, M. (1998). Integrative review of assessment models for health promotion of children and their families. In M. Broome, K. Knafl, K. Pridham, & S. Feetham (Eds.), Children and families in health and illness (pp. 15-55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (1998). What is family? Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
34. Hartrick, G. (1995). Transforming family nursing theory: From mechanicism to contextualism. Journal of Family Nursing, 7(2), 134-147.
35. Hartrick Doane, G. (2003). Through pragmatic eyes: Philosophy and the re-sourcing of family nursing. Nursing Philosophy, 4, 25-32.
36. Hartrick Doane, G., & Varcoe, C. (2005). Family nursing as relational inquiry: Developing health promotion practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins.
37. Hayes, V. (1993). Nursing science in family care, 1984-1990. In S. Feetham, S. Meister, J. Bell, & C. Gillis (Eds.), The nursing of families: Theory, research, education, practice (pp. 18-29). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
38. Hayes, V. (1997). Searching for family nursing practice knowledge. In S. Thorne & V. Hayes (Eds.), Nursing praxis: Knowledge and action (pp. 54-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. hooks, b. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
40. Houck, G., Kodadek, S., & Samson, C. (2005). Research in families and family nursing. In S. Harmon Hanson, V. Gedaly-Duff, & J. Rowe Kaakinen (Eds.), Family health care: Theory, practice, and research (3rd ed., pp. 97-117). Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.
41. Johnson, M. (1998). Who is the family? In B. Vaughan-Cole, M. Johnson, J. Malone, & B. Walker (Eds.), Family Nursing Research (pp. 3-18). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
42. Kazak, A. (2002). Challenges in family health intervention research. Families, Systems, and Health, 20(1), 51-59.
43. Kerig, P., & Lindahl, K. (2001). Family observational coding systems: Resources for systemic research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44. Knafl, K., & Ayres, L. (1996). Managing large qualitative data sets in family research. Journal of Family Nursing, 2(4), 350-364.
45. Kristjanson, L. (1992). Conceptual issues related to measurement in family research. The Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 24(3), 37-52.
46. Lackey, N., & Walker, B. (1998). An ecological framework for nursing practice and research. In B. Vaughan-Cole, M. Johnson, J. Malone, & B. Walker (Eds.), Family Nursing Research (pp. 38-48). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
47. Larson, A., & Olson, D. (1990). Capturing the complexity of family systems: Integrating family theory, family scores, and family analysis. In T. Draper & A. Marcos (Eds.), Family variables: Conceptualization, measurement, and. use (pp. 19-47). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
48. Lavee, Y., & Dollahite, D. (1991). The linkage between theory and research in family science. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(2), 361-374.
49. Lindeke, L., Hauck, M., & Tanner, M. (2000). Practical issues in obtaining child assent for research. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 15(2), 99-104.
50. Manias, E., & Street, A. (2000). Possibilities for critical social theory and Foucault's work: A toolbox approach. Nursing Inquiry, 7(1), 50-61.
51. Margolin, G., Chien, D., Duman, S., Fauchier, A., Gordis, E., Oliver, P., et al., (2005). Ethical issues in couple and family research. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(1), 157-167.
52. McAdoo, H., Martinez, E., & Hughes, H. (2005). Ecological changes in ethnic families of color. In V. Bengtson, A. Acock, K. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 191-212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53. McCubbin, H., Thompson, A., & McCubbin, M. (1996). Family measures: Stress, coping, and resiliency. Inventories for research and practice. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. Retrieved October 15, 2004, from http://familymeasures.ksbe.edu.
54. McIntyre, M. (1995). 'The focus of the discipline of nursing': A critique and extension. Advances in Nursing Science, 18(1), 27-35.
55. Meaux, J., & Bell, P. (2001). Balancing recruitment and protection: Children as research subjects. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 24, 241-251.
56. Medical Research Council of Canada (2003). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa, ON: Public Works and Government Services Canada.
57. Merriman, C. (2006). Aristotle - Biography and works. The Literature Network. Retrieved December 4, 2006, from http://www.online-literature.com/ aristotle
58. Moriarty, H. (1990). Key issues in the family research process: Strategies for nurse researchers. Advances in Nursing Science, 12(3), 1-14.
59. Munford, R., & Sanders, J. (2003). Making a difference. In R. Sanders & J. Munford (Eds.), Making a difference in families: Research that creates change (pp. 1-14). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
60. National Institutes of Health (2001). Regulations and ethical guidelines. Retrieved October 15, 2004, from http://www.nihtraining.com/ohsrsite/ guidelines/45cfr46.html
61. Noble, T. (1998). Postmodernity and family theory. Critical Sociology, 39(3), 257-277.
62. Ransom, D., Fisher, L., Phillips, S., Kokes, R., & Weiss, R. (1990). The logic of measurement in family research. In T. Draper & A. Marcos, (Eds.), Family variables: Conceptualization, measurement, and use (pp. 48-66). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
63. Ray, L. (2002). Parenting and childhood chronicity: Making visible the invisible work. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 17(6), 424-438.
64. Robinson, C. (1995). Beyond dichotomies in the nursing of persons and families. Image - The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 27(2), 116-120.
65. Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1969). Family sociology or wives; family sociology: A cross-cultural examination of decision making. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 290-301.
66. Sawin, K. (1995). Measures of family functioning for research and practice. New York: Springer.
67. Sayer, A., & Klute, M. (2005). Analyzing couples and families: Multilevel methods. In V. Bengtson, A. Acock, K. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 289-314). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
68. Segal, L. (1995). A feminist looks at the family. In J. Muncie, M. Wetherell, R. Dallas, & A. Cochrane (Eds.), Understanding the family (pp. 296-316). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
69. Society of Pediatric Nurses (2003). The role of the staff nurse in protecting children and families involved in research. Retrieved December 4, 2006, from http://pednurses.org/html/psresearch.htm
70. Statistics Canada (2001). Census families in private households. Retrieved November 9, 2006, from http://www.statcan.ca/english/concepts/ definitions/cen-family.htm.
71. Stuart, M. (1991). An analysis of the concept of family. In A. Whall & J. Fawcett (Eds.), Family theory development in nursing: State of the science and art (pp. 31-42). Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.
72. Sullivan, J., & Fawcett, J. (1991). The measurement of family phenomena. In A. Whall & J. Fawcett (Eds.), Family theory development in nursing: State of the science and art (pp. 69-84). Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.
73. Taylor, A., & Bagdi, A. (2005). The use of explicit theory in family research: A case analysis of the Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1990-1999. In V. Bengtson, A. Acock, K. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 22-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
74. Teachman, J., & Crowder, K. (2002). Multilevel models in family research: Some conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 280-294.
75. Thompson, L., & Walker, A. (1995). The place of feminism in family studies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 847-865.
76. Touliatos, J., Perelmutter, B., & Straus, M. (2001). Handbook of family measurement techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
77. Uphold, C., & Strickland, O. (1989). Issues related to the unit of analysis in family nursing research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 17, 405-417.
78. U.S. Census Bureau (2004). Current population survey - Definitions and explanations. Retrieved November 9, 2006, from http://ask.census.gov/cgi-bin/ askcensus.cfg /php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid = 614&p_created = 1091641666&p_sid = V7jCWfmi&p_lva = &p_sp = cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3JOPSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MT EzJnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz0mcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0mcF9wYWdlPTEmcF9zZW FyY2hfdGV4dD1kZWZpbml0aW9uIGZhbWlseQ**&p_li = &p_topview = 1.
79. Van Widenfelt, B., Treffers, P., De Beurs, E., Siebelink, B., & Koudijs, E. (2005). Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of assessment instruments used in psychological research with children and families. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8(2), 135-147.
80. Vaughan-Cole, B. (1998a). Family nursing research. In B. Vaughan-Cole, M. Johnson, J. Malone, & B. Walker (Eds.), Family Nursing Research (pp. 347-364). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
81. Vaughan-Cole, B. (1998b). Family systems theory for nursing practice. In B. Vaughan-Cole, M. Johnson, J. Malone, & B. Walker (Eds.), Family Nursing Research (pp. 19-37). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders.
82. Weihs, K., Fisher, L., & Baird, M. (2002). Families, health, and behavior: A section of the commissioned report by the Committee on Health and Behavior. Washington, DC: Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, and Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention of the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Science.
83. Wertlieb, D. (2003). Converging trends in family research and pediatrics: Focus on the family. Pediatrics, 111(6), 1572-1588.
84. Whall, A., & Loveland-Cherry, C. (1993). Family-unit focused research: 1984-1991. In J. Fitzpatrick & J. Stevenson (Eds.), Annual review of nursing research (Vol. 11, pp. 227-248). New York: Springer.
85. White, J., & Teachman, J. (2005). A comment on the use of multilevel methods in family research. In V. Bengtson, A. Acock, K. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 307-310). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
86. Wright, L., & Bell, J. (2004). Retrospective - Nurses, families, and illness: A new combination. Journal of Family Nursing, 10(1), 3-11.
87. Wright, L., & Leahey, M. (2005). Nurses and families: A guide to family assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.
88. Young, L. (2002). Transforming health promotion practice: Moving toward holistic care. In L. Young & V. Hayes (Eds.), Transforming health promotion practice: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 3-21). Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.
89. Zvinkliene, A. (1996). The state of family studies in Lithuania. Marriage and Family Review, 22(3-4), 203-233.