NLE Nursing Research Reviewer 2026

Answer: B. Back massage

Step 1: Recall the definitions. The INDEPENDENT variable (IV) is the presumed cause or the intervention that the researcher manipulates. The DEPENDENT variable (DV) is the outcome or effect that is measured. Step 2: Identify the cause-and-effect relationship in the question. The researcher is testing whether back massage (the action done) affects sleep quality (the result). Step 3: Apply the definition. Back massage is what the researcher does or manipulates — so it is the IV. Step 4: Eliminate wrong options. Sleep quality is the OUTCOME being measured = DV. Age is a demographic characteristic, not the tested intervention. Number of hours of sleep is another way of measuring the DV (sleep quality). Step 5: Conclusion. Back massage = Independent Variable (the cause/intervention).

Answer: C. Null hypothesis

Step 1: Identify the key phrase. The statement says 'There is NO significant difference' — the word 'no' is the biggest clue. Step 2: Recall the definition. A NULL hypothesis (H0) states that there is NO relationship or NO difference between variables. It is the hypothesis that statistical testing tries to REJECT. Step 3: Eliminate other options. An alternative/research hypothesis (H1) states that there IS an expected relationship or difference. A directional hypothesis predicts the direction of the difference (e.g., 'Group A will score LOWER than Group B'). Step 4: Apply to the question. The statement predicts NO difference — this is a textbook null hypothesis. Step 5: Conclusion. Any hypothesis stating 'no difference' or 'no relationship' = Null Hypothesis (H0).

Answer: D. Randomized controlled trial (RCT)

Step 1: Recall the three hallmarks of a TRUE experiment: (1) MANIPULATION of the independent variable, (2) a CONTROL GROUP, and (3) RANDOMIZATION of participants. Step 2: Evaluate each option. Quasi-experimental — has manipulation but is MISSING randomization and/or a control group. Descriptive design — no manipulation; only describes a phenomenon. Correlational design — examines relationships but does NOT manipulate variables. Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) — has ALL THREE: the researcher gives an intervention (manipulation), compares with a control group, AND assigns participants randomly. Step 3: Conclusion. The RCT is the GOLD STANDARD for establishing cause-and-effect and sits near the top of the evidence hierarchy. This is a high-yield NLE point!

Answer: B. Systematic sampling

Step 1: Identify the key action in the question: selecting every 5th name from a list. Step 2: Match this to its definition. SYSTEMATIC sampling selects every kth (every nth) member from an ordered list. In this case, k = 5. Step 3: Eliminate other options. Simple random sampling — every member has an equal chance, selected using a table of random numbers or lottery; does NOT follow an interval pattern. Stratified random sampling — population is DIVIDED into subgroups (strata) first (e.g., by age or sex), then randomly sampled within each stratum. Cluster sampling — entire groups (clusters, e.g., barangays) are randomly selected, then individuals within are sampled. Step 4: The phrase 'every 5th name from a list' is the classic definition of SYSTEMATIC sampling. Step 5: All four options here are probability (random) sampling methods — so all support generalizability.

Answer: D. Informed consent

Step 1: Identify what the nurse is doing. She is explaining purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and the right to withdraw — this is the full process of obtaining agreement before participation. Step 2: Define the options. Beneficence — doing GOOD; maximizing benefits. Nonmaleficence — avoiding HARM. Justice — fair selection and treatment of participants. Informed consent — voluntary, fully-informed agreement to participate; the participant must understand all aspects AND has the right to withdraw without penalty. Step 3: Match the description to the concept. The researcher is ensuring the patient is INFORMED and consents VOLUNTARILY before data collection begins = Informed Consent. Step 4: Note the Philippine context. In the Philippines, research ethics also aligns with RA 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012) for protecting data. Step 5: Conclusion. The entire description in the question maps directly to the definition and components of INFORMED CONSENT.

Answer: C. 120

Step 1: Recall the definition. The MODE is the value that appears MOST FREQUENTLY in a data set. Step 2: Count the frequency of each value. 118 — appears 1 time. 120 — appears 3 times. 122 — appears 1 time. 125 — appears 1 time. 130 — appears 1 time. Step 3: Identify the most frequent value. 120 appears 3 times — more than any other value. Step 4: Therefore, the MODE = 120. Step 5: Remember the key comparison. MEAN = average (sum ÷ n, used for normal/interval-ratio data). MEDIAN = middle value when ordered (used for skewed data or ordinal). MODE = most frequent (the ONLY measure used for nominal data). In this case, the question specifically asks for MODE.

Answer: B. The result IS statistically significant; reject the null hypothesis.

Step 1: Recall the rule for p-values. The conventional cutoff (alpha level) is p < 0.05. If the p-value is LESS than 0.05, the result is statistically SIGNIFICANT, and we REJECT the null hypothesis. Step 2: Apply to the question. p = 0.03, which is LESS than 0.05 (0.03 < 0.05). Therefore, the result IS statistically significant, and the null hypothesis is rejected. Step 3: Eliminate wrong options. Option A is incorrect because p = 0.03 IS below 0.05, making it significant. Option C misinterprets p-value; the p-value does NOT tell us the probability of effectiveness. Option D confuses p-value with margin of error, which is a different concept. Step 4: Important caution: Statistical significance (p < 0.05) does NOT automatically mean CLINICAL significance — nurses must always ask if the difference is meaningful in real patient care. Step 5: Conclusion. p = 0.03 < 0.05 = statistically significant = reject H0.

Answer: B. Best research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values/preferences

Step 1: Recall the standard definition of EBP from leading nursing scholars (Sackett, Melnyk). EBP integrates THREE components: (1) Best available RESEARCH EVIDENCE, (2) CLINICAL EXPERTISE of the nurse/healthcare provider, and (3) PATIENT VALUES and PREFERENCES. Step 2: Why are all three needed? Research evidence alone is not enough — the nurse's experience and the patient's individual preferences must also guide the decision. Step 3: Eliminate wrong options. Option A — nursing theory and cost-effectiveness are NOT the three pillars of EBP. Option C — hospital protocols and research funding are administrative, not EBP pillars. Option D — statistical significance and peer-reviewed journals are tools/sources, not EBP pillars. Step 4: Remember the Philippine context. Filipino registered nurses are expected under RA 9173 to demonstrate research competence, which includes applying EBP in clinical settings. Step 5: Best evidence + Clinical expertise + Patient values = EBP.

Answer: C. Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

Step 1: Recall the evidence hierarchy from strongest to weakest. Level 1 (Strongest): Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs. Level 2: Individual well-designed RCTs. Level 3: Quasi-experimental studies. Level 4: Cohort and case-control studies. Level 5: Systematic reviews of descriptive/qualitative studies. Level 6: Single descriptive or qualitative studies. Level 7 (Weakest): Expert opinion. Step 2: Why is systematic review + meta-analysis the strongest? It COMBINES the results of multiple RCTs, increasing sample size, reducing bias, and giving the most reliable conclusion. Step 3: Eliminate other options. Expert opinion is the WEAKEST level — based on individual knowledge, not systematic data. Case-control study is Level 4. Single descriptive study is Level 6. Step 4: The key phrase in the question is 'strongest evidence for cause and effect.' Only experimental designs (RCTs) establish causation, and a REVIEW of multiple RCTs is the most powerful. Step 5: Systematic review/meta-analysis of RCTs = TOP of the evidence pyramid.

Answer: B. Reliable but not valid

Step 1: Define the key terms. RELIABILITY = the instrument gives CONSISTENT, reproducible results. VALIDITY = the instrument measures what it is SUPPOSED to measure (accuracy). Step 2: Analyze the scenario. The cuff 'consistently gives readings 10 mmHg HIGHER than the actual.' CONSISTENTLY = same result every time = RELIABLE. But 10 mmHg HIGHER than actual = NOT measuring the true blood pressure = NOT VALID. Step 3: Apply the principle. An instrument can be RELIABLE without being VALID. Example: a consistently wrong scale. But an instrument CANNOT be valid without being reliable. Step 4: Eliminate other options. Valid but not reliable — impossible scenario if readings are consistent (consistent = reliable). Both valid and reliable — NO, because readings are always wrong by 10 mmHg (not accurate). Neither valid nor reliable — NO, because readings are CONSISTENT (reliable). Step 5: Conclusion. Consistent but inaccurate = RELIABLE but NOT VALID.

Answer: B. Randomized controlled trial (RCT)

Step 1 — Identify the three hallmarks of a true experiment: manipulation of the independent variable (IV), a control group, and randomization. Step 2 — In this scenario, the researcher manipulates the IV (ambulation protocol), has a control group (standard care), and randomly assigns participants — all three criteria are met. Step 3 — This makes it a true experiment, specifically a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT), which is the gold standard for establishing cause and effect. Step 4 — Why not quasi-experimental? Quasi-experimental studies lack randomization and/or a control group. This study has both. Step 5 — Correlational and descriptive designs involve no manipulation of the IV at all, so they are ruled out.

Answer: C. Null hypothesis

Step 1 — The null hypothesis (H0) always states that there is NO relationship, NO difference, or NO effect between variables. Step 2 — The statement says 'no significant difference' — this is the defining language of a null hypothesis. Step 3 — The research (alternative) hypothesis (H1) is the opposite; it predicts that a difference or relationship DOES exist. Step 4 — A directional hypothesis is a type of research hypothesis that specifies the direction of the expected difference (e.g., 'music therapy will lower pain scores MORE than standard care'). Step 5 — Statistical testing is designed to either reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis, not to prove it directly. This concept is a frequent NLE item.