What is a theoretical framework in research

what is a theoretical framework in research

Sample Theoretical Framework

Sep 10,  · The theoretical framework may be rooted in a specific theory, in which case, you are expected to test the validity of an existing theory in relation to specific events, issues, or rkslogadoboj.com social science research papers fit into this rubric. For example, Peripheral Realism theory, which categorizes perceived differences between nation-states as those that give orders, . The theoretical framework is an important concept in research. Students studying in the college or the University of Singapore often face issues in preparing the theoretical framework. In this article, an expert dissertation writing team of Singapore assignment help is providing you with a sample problem statement, theoretical framework.

This guide is intended to help you organize and write a quality academic research paper. Also included are recommendations regarding how to manage specific course assignments. Note that, if you have specific questions about how to write a research paper, you should always seek advice from your professor before you begin. Specific requirements stated by your professor will always supersede instructions provided in these general guidelines.

Thanks to Dr. Robert V. Our mission is to provide academic support to strengthen student learning and empower every student to develop as self-directed learners.

JLC tutors see each student as a holistic learner, paying reserach to the importance of cognition as well as to the emotional aspects of learning. Academic Support Services include 1-on-1 tutoring with Professional and Peer tutors; group study sessions for particular courses framdwork Classroom Learning Assistants CLAs ; monthly workshops on specific academic and life skills; specialized Learning Labs in math, critical reading and writing, accounting, and math; and online writing support OWL.

It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with how to get into djing at clubs browser, you may see unexpected results.

The Conclusion Toggle Dropdown Appendices Purpose of Guide This guide is intended to help you organize and write a quality academic research paper. Report a problem.

Theoretical framework definition

problem to research or illustrate that there is a gap in previous research that needs to be filled. The literature review, therefore, serves as the driving force and the jumping off point for your own research investigation.” (Ridley, , p.2) When constructing a literature review, you want to . The standards framework codifies WIDA’s stated approach to language development. However, it is important to understand the overarching philosophies and foundational principles that support the framework; those principles and philosophies are discussed in this paper. Theoretical Foundations that Support the Standards Framework. Jan 26,  · Study 2: Theoretical framework of acceptability. The process of identifying or writing explicit definitions for each of the proposed constructs in the theoretical framework of acceptability resulted in revisions to the TFA (v1) and the development of the revised TFA (v2) as we came to recognise inherent redundancy and overlap.

Metrics details. However, the published literature offers little guidance on how to define or assess acceptability. The purpose of this study was to develop a multi-construct theoretical framework of acceptability of healthcare interventions that can be applied to assess prospective i. Two methods were used to select the component constructs of acceptability.

Steps included 1 defining acceptability; 2 describing its properties and scope and 3 identifying component constructs and empirical indicators. From the 43 reviews included in the overview, none explicitly theorised or defined acceptability. Measures used to assess acceptability focused on behaviour e. From the methods described above we propose a definition: Acceptability is a multi-faceted construct that reflects the extent to which people delivering or receiving a healthcare intervention consider it to be appropriate, based on anticipated or experienced cognitive and emotional responses to the intervention.

The theoretical framework of acceptability TFA consists of seven component constructs: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy. Despite frequent claims that healthcare interventions have assessed acceptability, it is evident that acceptability research could be more robust. The proposed definition of acceptability and the TFA can inform assessment tools and evaluations of the acceptability of new or existing interventions.

Peer Review reports. Acceptability has become a key consideration in the design, evaluation and implementation of healthcare interventions. Many healthcare interventions are complex in nature; for example, they can consist of several interacting components, or may be delivered at different levels within a healthcare organisation [ 1 ].

Intervention developers are faced with the challenge of designing effective healthcare interventions to guarantee the best clinical outcomes achievable with the resources available [ 2 , 3 ].

Acceptability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for effectiveness of an intervention. Successful implementation depends on the acceptability of the intervention to both intervention deliverers e.

If an intervention is considered acceptable, patients are more likely to adhere to treatment recommendations and to benefit from improved clinical outcomes [ 6 , 7 ].

From the perspective of healthcare professionals, if the delivery of a particular intervention to patients is considered to have low acceptability, the intervention may not be delivered as intended by intervention designers , which may have an impact on the overall effectiveness of the intervention [ 8 , 9 ]. In the United Kingdom, the Medical Research Council MRC has published three guidance documents for researchers and research funders in relation to appropriate methods for designing and evaluating complex interventions [ 10 — 12 ].

The number of references to acceptability has increased with each guidance publication which reflects the growing importance of this construct. The MRC guidance document makes no reference to acceptability, whereas the guidance refers to acceptability 14 times but lacks a definition and fails to provide clear instructions on how to assess acceptability. The guidance focuses on conducting process evaluations of complex interventions.

Nevertheless, it fails to offer a definition of acceptability or specific materials for operationalising it. Without a shared understanding of what acceptability refers to it is unclear how intervention developers are to assess acceptability for those receiving and delivering healthcare interventions. Defining acceptability is not a straightforward matter. Definitions within the healthcare literature vary considerably highlighting the ambiguity of the concept. These terms indicate that acceptability can be considered from an individual perspective but may also reflect a more collectively shared judgement about the nature of an intervention.

However, this definition is partly circular as it states that social acceptability entails acceptability. Sidani et al. Others argue that perceptions of acceptability may change with actual experience of the intervention [ 19 ].

The inconsistency in defining concepts can impede the development of valid assessment instruments [ 20 ]. Theorising the concept of acceptability would provide the foundations needed to develop assessment tools of acceptability. Within the disciplines of health psychology, health services research and implementation science the application of theory is recognised as enhancing the development, evaluation and implementation of complex interventions [ 10 , 11 , 21 — 25 ].

We argue that theorising the construct of acceptability will lead to a better understanding of: 1 what acceptability is or is proposed to be specifically whether acceptability is a unitary or multi-component construct ; 2 if acceptability is a multi-component construct, what its components are or are proposed to be ; 3 how acceptability as a construct is proposed to relate to other factors, such as intervention engagement or adherence; and 4 how it can be measured.

The aim of this article is to describe the inductive empirical and deductive theoretical methods applied to develop a comprehensive theoretical framework of acceptability.

This is presented in two sequential studies. The objective of the first study was to review current practice and complete an overview of systematic reviews identifying how the acceptability of healthcare interventions has been defined, operationalised and theorised. The objective of the second study was to supplement evidence from study 1 with a deductive approach to propose component constructs in the theoretical framework of acceptability. Preliminary scoping searches identified no existing systematic review focused solely on the acceptability of healthcare interventions.

However, systematic reviews were identified which considered the acceptability of healthcare and non-healthcare interventions alongside other factors such as effectiveness [ 27 ] efficacy [ 28 ] and tolerability [ 29 ]. We therefore decided to conduct an overview of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions that have included a focus on acceptability, alongside other factors e.

Systematic Reviews published from May the MRC guidance was published in April to February were retrieved through a single systematic literature search conducted in two phases i. There were two search strategies applied to both phase 1 and phase 2 searches. Duplicates were removed in Endnote. All abstracts were reviewed by a single researcher MS against the inclusion and exclusion criteria Table 1.

One researcher MS retrieved all full text papers that met the inclusion criteria and extracted data using an extraction form. The researchers extracted information on how acceptability had been defined, whether acceptability had been theorised, and when and how acceptability had been assessed.

There were no disagreements in data extraction. No quality assessment tool was applied as it is possible that poor quality systematic reviews would include information relevant to addressing the study aims and objectives. To identify how acceptability has been defined one researcher MS extracted definitions from each of the systematic reviews.

Where definitions of acceptability were unclear, a reasonable level of inference was used in order to identify an implicit definition where review authors imply their understanding of acceptability whilst not directly proposing a definition of acceptability see results section for example of inferences.

To check reliability of the coding of extracted text reflecting implicit or explicit definitions seven research psychologists including the three authors were asked to classify the extracted text into the following categories: 1 Conceptual Definition i.

The consensus group was allowed to select one or more options that they considered applicable to each definition. Explanations of these categories are presented in Table 2. The review authors subsequently repeated the same exercise for extracted definitions from the updated phase 2 search.

No quantitative synthesis was conducted. All extracted data were analysed by applying the thematic synthesis approach [ 30 ]. The methods applied to develop theory are not always described systematically in the healthcare and psychology literature [ 31 ]. The data driven process focuses on observations from empirical data to form theory, whereas the theory driven process works on the premise of applying existing theory in an effort to understand data.

The process of theorising is enhanced when inductive and deductive processes are combined [ 35 , 36 ]. To theorise the concept of acceptability, we applied both inductive and deductive processes by taking a similar approach described by Hox [ 33 ]. Hox proposed that, in order to theorise, researchers must 1 decide on the concept for measurement; 2 define the concept; 3 describe the properties and scope of the concept and how it differs from other concepts ; and 4 identify the empirical indicators and subdomains i.

We describe below how steps were applied in developing a theoretical framework of acceptability. We first agreed on the limits of the construct to be theorised: acceptability of healthcare interventions. To define the concept of acceptability we reviewed the results of the overview of reviews, specifically the conceptual and operational definitions identified by both consensus group exercises and the variables reported in the behavioural and self-report measures identified from the included systematic reviews.

Qualitatively synthesising these definitions, we proposed the following conceptual definition of acceptability:. A multi-faceted construct that reflects the extent to which people delivering or receiving a healthcare intervention consider it to be appropriate, based on anticipated or experienced cognitive and emotional responses to the intervention.

This definition incorporates the component constructs of acceptability cognitive and emotional responses and also provides a hypothesis cognitive and emotional responses are likely to influence behavioural engagement with the intervention. This working definition of acceptability can be operationalised for the purpose of measurement.

Based on the conceptual definition we identified the properties and scope of the construct of acceptability using inductive and deductive methods to determine which constructs best represented the core empirical indicators of acceptability. The application of inductive methods involved reviewing the empirical data that emerged from the overview of reviews.

First, variables identified in the consensus group task to define acceptability, and the variables reported in the observed behavioural measures and self-report measures of acceptability, were grouped together according to similarity.

Next, we considered what construct label best described each of the variable groupings. Figure 1 presents our conceptual definition and component constructs of acceptability, offering examples of the variables they incorporate. This forms our preliminary theoretical framework of acceptability, TFA v1. The theoretical framework of acceptability v1.

Note: In bold font are the labels we assigned to represent the examples of the variables applied to operationalise and assess acceptability based on the results from the overview italic font. The CSM focuses on beliefs about a health threat and coping procedures that might control the threat. This approach is thus consistent with the focus of the TFA on acceptability of healthcare interventions.

The CSM proposes that, in response to a perceived health threat, individuals spontaneously generate five kinds of cognitive representation of the illness based around identity i. Moss-Morris and colleagues [ 38 ] distinguished between personal control i. The third step in the deductive process resulted in the inclusion of both treatment control and personal control as additional constructs within the TFA v1 Fig.

With these additions the framework appeared to include a parsimonious set of constructs that provided good coverage of acceptability as defined. Having identified the component constructs of acceptability, we identified or wrote formal operational definitions for each of the constructs within the TFA v1. This was done to check that the constructs were conceptually distinctive. We first searched the psychological literature for definitions.

If a clear definition for a construct was not available in the psychological literature, standard English language dictionaries and other relevant disciplines e.

For each construct, a minimum of two definitions were identified. The databases searches identified references, with remaining after de-duplication. After screening titles and abstracts, 53 full texts were retrieved for further examination. Thus, a total of 43 publications were included in this overview Additional file 2.

The breakdown of the search process for phase 1 and phase 2 is represented in Fig. None of the reviews specified a threshold criterion, i. These included two reviews measuring adherence and satisfaction [ 45 , 46 ], three reviews focusing on dropout rates, take-up rates, reasons for discontinuation and a satisfaction measure [ 47 — 49 ] one review combining the time taken for wound healing alongside a measure of satisfaction and comfort [ 29 ], and two reviews using semi-structured interviews to explore participant experience of the intervention alongside intervention take-up rates [ 50 , 51 ].

We also extracted data on the time at which studies in each of the reviews assessed acceptability relative to the delivery of the intervention Additional file 5.

Within these three reviews, it was unclear whether interpretations of intervention acceptability were based on anticipated i. There was no mention of theory in relation to acceptability in any of these 43 reviews.

None of the review authors proposed any link between their definitions when present and assessments of acceptability and existing theory or theoretical models i.



More articles in this category:
<- What if a dog eats chocolate what happens - What is pes erase pro->

1 thoughts on “What is a theoretical framework in research

Add a comment

Your email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top