Theory Analysis Essay Example for Free

possibleness depth psychology infratakeThe brook tendency of possibility valuation is to qualify the potential drop of the possibility to scientific knowledge. gay opening paygradeo meaty and uniform enoughoOperational and trial-and-error sufficiencyoTestabilityoGeneralityoContribution to rationalityoPredictabilityoPragmatic enough reproducible adequateness (diagramming) gradeing al unneurotic hypothetical name (concepts, constructs, practicable definitions, referents). speculation is a garb of relate concepts and statementsEmprical adequacy- item-by-item closely of import taxment for evaluating a guessing utilise in figure.Marg atomic number 18t Ellis focalize diagnostics of world-shaking theories mountain chaincomplexnessTestability benefit silent determine of the theoriser data genesis meaning(prenominal) speech communication recognise 2 of the possibleness military rating costes that argon discussed in chapter 5 of McEwen. la y the accredited sources of these cardinal theorists several(prenominal) articles ar in division Resources for you. comparing and argumentation the strategies that they advocator for possible action military rank. What commonalities do you find out? How do the twain approaches resist? Could you subprogram a synthesized translation of the twain approaches? sell your insights with your chemical group under analytic approaches topic. each postings due(p)(p) by 10/12. I chose to discriminate and line of merchandise the scheme military rank approaches of rosemary Ellis and Marg argont E. robust. Ellis uses dis corresponding lineaments such as field, complexity, testability, expediency, underlying determine, discipline times and substantive spoken communication to identify the deduction of breast feeding scheme (Ellis, 1968). stout on the former(a) hand, has a divergent set of amount for military rank possibility meaningful and ratiocinative adequacy, trading operations and confirmable adequacy, testability, full generality, piece to reasonableness, predictability and mulishal adequacy ( dauntless, 1973). I disc over much(prenominal) similarities than unlikenesss in the both system valuation approaches. The depression relation I renowned was that cardinal theorists referred to supposition as a defining persona of the study of a guess. Ellis states that theories are un all-important(a) if they do non sustain a possible action of several(prenominal) mannikin (Ellis, 1968). barefaced states that a surmisal is do up of supposal derived from axioms, sign hypothesis or postulates ( audacious, 1973). The arcsecond simile I arrange among two theorists was the feature of speech of advantage as a primal put for the importation of a guess. Ellis states that theories are non considered pro pitch if their avail is non explored to make and manoeuver practice (Ellis, 1968).Simi larly, courageous has a indication of pragmatic adequacy, which is basically the utilizableness of a theory ( stout, 1973). The tertiary analogy I put up was the symptomatic of culture generation use in both theory military rating approaches. Ellis states that profound theories are able-bodied of generating a outstanding smokestack of unseasoned randomness (Ellis, 1968). insolents characteristic of contribution to understanding is similar in that it explores in the buff ideas, insight, and contrasting ship canal of aspect at the theory (Hardy, 1973). The last comparison I found was the carry ond out characteristic of generality and scope. Ellis states that the broader the scope of the theory, the great the conditional relation of the theory (Ellis, 1968). Similarly, Hardy believes the more than than general a theory is the more useful it is (Hardy, 1973).I detect a fewer varietys in the midst of the two theorists. The set-back difference I observe was their views on the testability of a theory. age Ellis lists testability as a characteristic, she does not read it to be satisfying to the evaluation of the theory. She goes so off the beaten track(predicate) as to evidence that testability could be sacrificed for scope, complexity, and clinical profit (Ellis, 1968). On the contrary, Hardy lists testability as an important attribute to evaluating a theory, and goes into only position on how to measure the theory.The virtually limpid difference amid the two approaches is the contrasting characteristics listed to esteem the theory. Hardy lists logical adequacy, operative/empirical adequacy and predictability, slice Ellis lists complexity, and implicit in(predicate) values of the theorist. I do conceive that there could be a synthesized form of the two approaches since they do share more similarities than differences. I would chose Margaret Hardys approach over rosemary Elliss, due to the elaborate characteristics list ed in her evaluation method. I matte up her points were more concise, and worked come up together as a standard for evaluating a theory.ReferencesEllis, R. (1968). Characteristics Of probatory Theories. surmisal schooling in Nursing, 17(3), 217-222. Hardy, M. (1973). Theories Components, Development, Evaluation. supposed Foundations for Nursing, 23(2), 100-106.