There is actually an article I had to summarize for one of our first assignments, that discusses why theories in nursing are not “correct” or “incorrect”, but have to be evaluated according to their “social congruence” (does the theory live up to society’s expectations of nurses), “social significance” (would society change if nurses stopped existing), and “social utility” (do nurses themselves find the theory useful). (Yes, I just had to reopen my assignment in a Word document so I can check which of those concepts was which, because they’re named in a way that makes it impossible to remember.)
Can you describe how else one would test a nursing theory for correctness?
As I understand it, a nursing theory says, “If the nurse follows procedure A, the reaction in the patient will be X. If the nurse doesn’t follow procedure A, the reaction in the patient will be Y.”
If the theory is accurate in those predictions, it’s a correct theory, even if it sounds crazy. To tell whether it’s a correct theory, we have to test it. That’s what I was driving at.
I don’t think I have to answer that to point out the flaw.
If all nursing theories considered are wrong than one of those can easily still be the one that produces the best results despite no correlation with what nursing actually is about.
A flaw I would expect to see more often is a nursing theory that has new age elements that are not linked to reality, makes the user feel helpful and good and leads possibly to a good care of patients. But that sounds like rating the more effective bedtime story or the more effective motivational mission statement.
The term “nursing theory” implies that it is a theory about how nursing should be done, not what thoughts the nurse should have while doing it.
There are actually some nursing theories–specifically those under the model of Transformation, which is apparently 1975-onwards–which are completely New Agey and waaay more useless than Roy’s theory. Roger’s theory of “Unitary Human Beings” defines humans as “indivisible energy fields defined by their patterns” and health as “a manifestation of constant and mutual exchange processes between the energy fields of the person and the environment.” Not only is that vague, it’s not even comprehensible to me.
This still does not make it a correct theory.
There is actually an article I had to summarize for one of our first assignments, that discusses why theories in nursing are not “correct” or “incorrect”, but have to be evaluated according to their “social congruence” (does the theory live up to society’s expectations of nurses), “social significance” (would society change if nurses stopped existing), and “social utility” (do nurses themselves find the theory useful). (Yes, I just had to reopen my assignment in a Word document so I can check which of those concepts was which, because they’re named in a way that makes it impossible to remember.)
Can you describe how else one would test a nursing theory for correctness?
As I understand it, a nursing theory says, “If the nurse follows procedure A, the reaction in the patient will be X. If the nurse doesn’t follow procedure A, the reaction in the patient will be Y.”
If the theory is accurate in those predictions, it’s a correct theory, even if it sounds crazy. To tell whether it’s a correct theory, we have to test it. That’s what I was driving at.
I don’t think I have to answer that to point out the flaw. If all nursing theories considered are wrong than one of those can easily still be the one that produces the best results despite no correlation with what nursing actually is about. A flaw I would expect to see more often is a nursing theory that has new age elements that are not linked to reality, makes the user feel helpful and good and leads possibly to a good care of patients. But that sounds like rating the more effective bedtime story or the more effective motivational mission statement. The term “nursing theory” implies that it is a theory about how nursing should be done, not what thoughts the nurse should have while doing it.
There are actually some nursing theories–specifically those under the model of Transformation, which is apparently 1975-onwards–which are completely New Agey and waaay more useless than Roy’s theory. Roger’s theory of “Unitary Human Beings” defines humans as “indivisible energy fields defined by their patterns” and health as “a manifestation of constant and mutual exchange processes between the energy fields of the person and the environment.” Not only is that vague, it’s not even comprehensible to me.