Theory Analysis Essay Example for Free

Theory Analysis EssayThe ultimate end of possible action evaluation is to determine the potential of the opening to scientific knowledge.HardyTheory evaluationo meaty and formal adequacyoOperational and empirical adequacyoTestabilityoGeneralityoContribution to understandingoPredictabilityoPragmatic adequacyLogical adequacy (diagramming) identifying both theoretical terms (concepts, constructs, operational definitions, referents).Theory is a set of interrelated concepts and statementsEmprical adequacy- single most all important(predicate) criterion for evaluating a theory applied in practice.Margaret EllisIdentified peculiar(prenominal)s of monumental theoriesScopeComplexityTestability expediencyImplicit values of the theoristInformation generationMeaningful terminologyChoose both of the theory evaluation approaches that are discussed in chapter 5 of McEwen. Locate the original sources of these two theorists some articles are in Course Resources for you. Compare and c ontrast the strategies that they advocate for theory evaluation. What commonalities do you see? How do the two approaches discord? Could you use a synthesized version of the two approaches? Share your insights with your group under Analytic approaches topic. All postings delinquent by 10/12. I chose to compare and contrast the theory evaluation approaches of Rosemary Ellis and Margaret E. Hardy. Ellis uses various characteristics much(prenominal) as scope, complexity, testability, usefulness, implicit values, information generation and meaningful terminology to identify the significance of nursing theory (Ellis, 1968).Hardy on the other hand, has a different set of criterion for evaluation theory meaningful and logical adequacy, operations and empirical adequacy, testability, normality, contribution to understanding, predictability and pragmatic adequacy (Hardy, 1973). I noticed much similarities than differences in the two theory evaluation approaches. The first similarity I n oted was that both theorists referred to hypothesis as a defining component of the development of a theory. Ellis states that theories are insignificant if they do not succumb a hypothesis of some sort (Ellis, 1968). Hardy states that a theory is made up of hypothesis derived from axioms, initial hypothesis or postulates (Hardy, 1973). The second similarity I rig between both theorists was the characteristic of usefulness as a prime characteristic for the significance of a theory. Ellis states that theories are not considered significant if their usefulness is not explored to develop and guide practice (Ellis, 1968).Similarly, Hardy has a characteristic of pragmatic adequacy, which is basically the usefulness of a theory (Hardy, 1973). The third similarity I found was the characteristic of information generation used in both theory evaluation approaches. Ellis states that significant theories are capable of generating a vast deal of new information (Ellis, 1968). Hardys characte ristic of contribution to understanding is similar in that it explores new ideas, insight, and different ways of looking at the theory (Hardy, 1973). The last similarity I found was the shared characteristic of generality and scope. Ellis states that the broader the scope of the theory, the greater the significance of the theory (Ellis, 1968). Similarly, Hardy believes the more general a theory is the more useful it is (Hardy, 1973).I noticed a few differences between the two theorists. The first difference I noted was their views on the testability of a theory. While Ellis lists testability as a characteristic, she does not require it to be significant to the evaluation of the theory. She goes so far as to say that testability could be sacrificed for scope, complexity, and clinical usefulness (Ellis, 1968). On the contrary, Hardy lists testability as an important attribute to evaluating a theory, and goes into further detail on how to measure the theory.The most obvious difference between the two approaches is the contrasting characteristics listed to evaluate the theory. Hardy lists logical adequacy, operational/empirical adequacy and predictability, while Ellis lists complexity, and implicit values of the theorist. I do think that at that place could be a synthesized version of the two approaches since they do share more similarities than differences. I would chose Margaret Hardys approach over Rosemary Elliss, due to the detailed characteristics listed in her evaluation method. I felt her points were more concise, and worked well together as a criterion for evaluating a theory.ReferencesEllis, R. (1968). Characteristics Of Significant Theories. Theory Development in Nursing, 17(3), 217-222. Hardy, M. (1973). Theories Components, Development, Evaluation. Theoretical Foundations for Nursing, 23(2), 100-106.