Drugs for Alzheimer’s Discussion
Eight titles and no abstracts, which means the exercise is about reading title language as design evidence. One of the eight is not a research study at all, and noticing that is part of the test.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 22, 2026
Reading design out of the wording of a title
You have titles and nothing else, so the exercise is explicitly about what title language reveals about design, and saying that out loud earns credit. Certain verbs are reliable signals. Exploring, the meaning of living with, and beliefs about all point to qualitative work, and the specific traditions differ: the meaning of living with brain injury ten years after suggests phenomenology, exploring beliefs of healing among Aborigines suggests ethnography. The relationship between compassion fatigue and burnout points to a quantitative correlational design, factors that influence weight control suggests a survey or predictive design, and exploring the rate of seasonal-pattern depression is descriptive and epidemiological despite the word exploring, which is the useful counterexample and worth naming as one, because it shows you are reading the whole title rather than scanning for a keyword. Distinguish methodology, meaning the overarching approach, from design, meaning the specific structure within it, because the prompt asks for both and merging them costs half of every classification.
Two of the eight deserve special attention. Democracy in America is a nineteenth-century work of political observation, not a research study, and Two drugs for Alzheimer's show promise reads as a news headline reporting research rather than as a study title. Saying so is not being awkward; it demonstrates you are classifying evidence rather than pattern-matching, and a title that cannot be classified is a finding. Then treat the second question as a genuine appraisal. Problem and purpose are distinct: the problem is the gap in knowledge or practice, the purpose is what this study did about it. Many qualitative studies have no hypothesis, so say that rather than inventing one. For credibility and validity, use the criteria appropriate to the design you identified, since internal validity and trustworthiness are not interchangeable. Credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability are the qualitative equivalents, and using them where they belong is a small move that reads as competence.
Likely learning objectives
- Infer research design from title language and justify the inference.
- Distinguish methodology from design.
- Recognise a title that is not a research study.
- Appraise credibility using criteria matched to the study's design.
Assignment instructions
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Based on the following titles of research studies, identify what you believe to be the methodology, design, and rationale of the studies. You also need to provide a rationale for your assertions. Exploring the rate of seasonal-pattern depression in an Inuit community Democracy in America The relationship between compassion fatigue and burnout among critical care nurses Two drugs for Alzheimer’s show promise Evaluating technology with student success Factors that influence weight control among women The meaning of living with brain injury and stroke 10 years after the injury Exploring the beliefs of healing among Aborigines Discussion Question 2 Use the South University Online Library to research workforce issues and patient safety. Select one of the suggested references listed below. Drugs for Alzheimer’s Discussion. Based on your research, select an article and complete the following tasks: Identify and describe the research problems, purpose, objectives, and hypothesis of the research. Evaluate the credibility and validity of the study. Suggested References: Ko, E., Nelson-Becker, H., Park, Y., & Shin, M. (2013). End-of-Life decision making in older Korean adults: Concerns, preferences, and expectations.Educational Gerontology, 39(2), 71–81. Roulston, A., Bickerstaff, D., Haynes, T., Rutherford, L., & Jones, L. (2012). A pilot study to evaluate an outpatient service for people with advanced lung cancer. International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 18(5),225–233. Raurell-Torreda, M., Olivet-Pujol, J., Romero-Collado, A., MalagonAguilera, M. C., Patino-Maso, J., & Baltasar-Bague, A. (2014). Case-based learning and simulation: Useful tools to enhance nurses? education? Nonrandomized controlled trial. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 47(1), 34-42. Shisana, O., Rice, K., Zungu, N., & Zuma, K. (2010). Gender and poverty in South Africa in the era of HIV/AIDS: A quantitative study. Journal of Women’s Health (15409996), 19(1), 39–46. Citations should conform to APA guidelines. You may use this APA Citation Helper as a convenient reference for properly citing resources or connect to the APA Style website through the APA icon below.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A methodology and a design for each of the eight titles.
- 02A rationale for each classification drawn from the wording.
- 03Identification of the titles that are not research studies.
- 04For question two, the problem, purpose, objectives and hypothesis of a chosen article.
- 05A credibility and validity evaluation using design-appropriate criteria.
Classify the eight, then appraise one article properly
What title language signals
Set out the verb and phrase patterns that indicate qualitative or quantitative work.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A stated rule rather than a title-by-title guess.
The qualitative titles
Classify them and name the specific tradition each suggests.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Phenomenology or ethnography named, with the phrase that indicated it.
The quantitative titles
Classify correlational, descriptive and predictive designs among the remainder.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A design distinguished from another that shares its methodology.
The titles that are not studies
Identify the non-research items and explain how you can tell.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A reason drawn from the title rather than from prior knowledge.
Appraising the chosen article
Separate problem, purpose, objectives and hypothesis, then evaluate credibility.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Validity criteria chosen to match the design.
Where research design definitions are documented
Recommended databases
- NCBI Bookshelf
- PubMed Central
- South University Library
- CINAHL
Search sequence
- 1.Read a source that defines methodology against design before classifying anything.
- 2.Look up the distinguishing features of phenomenology and ethnography.
- 3.Find the appraisal criteria used for qualitative trustworthiness.
- 4.Locate one of the suggested articles and read its methods section fully.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
PRISMA, for how study design is reported and appraised systematically.
Measuring psychological safety in healthcare teams: developing an observational measure to complement survey methods
BMC Medical Research Methodology · 2020
Developing an observational measure, as a worked example of design and validation.
Psychological safety in an ECMO retrieval team: a qualitative study to inform improvement
BMJ Open Quality · 2024
A qualitative study in a clinical team, for recognising qualitative reporting conventions.
The hierarchy of evidence: levels and grades of recommendation
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, via PubMed Central · 2010
The evidence hierarchy, for where each design sits and why.
Nurses' and Patients' Perspectives on Care Coordination Across Health Care and Social Services Sectors: A Qualitative Study
PMC / National Library of Medicine · 2025
A qualitative perspectives study, for the phenomenological title pattern in practice.
Before you post to this week's forum
Common mistakes
- Giving a design for every title without noticing the ones that are not studies.
- Using methodology and design interchangeably.
- Inventing a hypothesis for a qualitative study that has none.
- Applying internal validity criteria to qualitative work.
- Classifying without stating what in the wording drove the classification.
Submission checklist
- Does every classification come with the wording that justified it?
- Have you separated methodology from design?
- Did you flag the titles that are not research studies?
- Are problem and purpose distinguished in question two?
- Do your validity criteria match the design you identified?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read Brinevia's academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Maren Caldwell
MSN, RN, CNE
Medical-surgical nursing, pharmacology and NCLEX preparation
Maren is a registered nurse with over 15 years of clinical and educational experience in medical-surgical nursing. She writes on NCLEX preparation, patient care fundamentals, pharmacology and evidence-based practice.
Reviewed by
Dr. Tessa Redmond
DNP, RN, CNE
Evidence-based practice and clinical education
Tessa is a doctorally-prepared nurse educator. She reviews Brinevia content for clinical accuracy and alignment with current evidence-based guidelines.