help_outline Skip to main content
Add Me To Your Mailing List
HomeBlogsRead Blog

Typographical Errors and Consequences

Typographical Errors and their Consequences
By Jacqueline Fawcett
Posted on 8/12/2020 12:24 PM

Typographical Errors and Consequences

Jacqueline Fawcett, RN; PhD; ScD (hon); FAAN; ANEF

Professor, Department of Nursing, University of Massachusetts Boston

 

A typographical error in email about initiation of blogs for the KING website included the word, Kong, rather than King. My immediate thought about this typographical error was “I am confident that Imogene King’s work and that of our KING colleagues is as strong as King Kong (the movie gorilla).”

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91HFBQ+QqxL._SX300_.jpg

Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/King-Kong-Fay-Wray/dp/B001R6AW18?SubscriptionId=AKIAJ2F6RDUSIYCWQMFQ&tag=sa-b2c-new-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B001R6AW18

 

Continuing this thought, how strong is work about King’s Conceptual System and Theory of Goal Attainment (https://nursology.net/nurse-theorists-and-their-work/kings-conceptual-system/)? How is strength of King’s pioneering work measured? 

Furthermore, how useful are King’s practice tools and research instruments? How useful is the Goal-Oriented Nursing Record (King, 1984), a documentation system used to record and evaluate nurse observations and actions and client responses.

How useful is the Criterion-Referenced Measure of Goal Attainment Tool (King, 1988), for assessing, planning, and evaluating client  performance of  ADLs, level of consciousness, hearing, vision, smell, taste, touch, speaking, listening, reading, writing, and decision-making abilities, nonverbal communication; response to performance of ADLs; and goals to be attained? 

Measuring strength of King’s work and by those whose work is based on King’s Conceptual System and/or Theory of Goal Attainment requires considerable thought. Is the number of members of KING (see https://kingnursing.org/content.aspx?sl=1328369086) a measure of strength of interest in King’s work? Is the number of citations in electronic databases, such as Comprehensive Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL Complete) and Dissertation Abstracts International, a valid and reliable measure of strength? Is the number of conferences at which presentations based on King’s work another valid and reliable measure of strength? Is the number of clinical agencies using King’s work to guide  nursing practice another measure of strength?  

I welcome readers’ thoughts about how to measure the strength of King’s work. Will measurement of strength tell us whether King’s work is as strong as King Kong?

 

References

King, I.M. (1984). Effectiveness of nursing care: Use of a goal-oriented nursing record in end stage renal disease. American Association of Nephrology Nurses and Technicians Journal, 11(2); 11–17, 60.

King, I.M. (1988). Measuring health goal attainment in patients. In C. F. Waltz & O. L. Strickland (Eds.), Measurement of nursing outcomes. Vol. 1. Measuring client outcomes (pp. 108–127). Springer.

 

Leave a Comment
 *