Description
Read the two articles attached here, one appearing in Radiologic Technologist and the other appearing in Radiation Therapist. Using your knowledge of research, compare and contrast the two articles written on these similar topics. Compare and contrast methods used, effectiveness, data collection methods, etc. Discuss the importance of writing in the radiation sciences. In addition to the discussion comparing the two articles think about the sections of the paper. How do they assist the reader? How do they assist the author? How do the paper sections compare to the sections described in the syllabus? How do the sections compare to your paper? ( I have attached both the articles, and my paper to compare to, to answer the question: How do the sections compare to your paper? )
Unformatted Attachment Preview
RADIOLOGIC
Volume 91, Number 3 January/February 2020
T
E
C
H
N
O
L
O
G
Y
IN THIS ISSUE
Comparison of 2 CT Contrast Media
Injection Systems: Visual Air
Identification and Injector
Face Cleaning
PAGE 214
Perceptions of Visible Body Art
Among Radiographers
PAGE 223
Medical Imaging and
Radiation Therapy Professionals’
Perceptions of Conducting Research
PAGE 240
DIRECTED READING ARTICLES
Nuclear Medicine Bone Imaging
PAGE 249
Biomimicry and Bioengineering
In Cardiovascular Care
PAGE 267
Original Article
Medical Imaging and
Radiation Therapy Professionals’
Perceptions of Conducting Research
Amanda Garlock-Heuer, MS, R.T.(R)(MR)
Kevin R Clark, EdD, R.T.(R)(QM)
Purpose To evaluate medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals’ perceptions of conducting research.
Methods Using a descriptive survey approach, a random sample of 10 000 American Society of Radiologic
Technologists (ASRT) members was invited to share their experiences with conducting research, including challenges,
reasons for not engaging in research, potential motivators, and support measures that would enhance their ability to
conduct research in the medical imaging and radiation therapy profession. Three hundred ninety completed responses
were analyzed for this study.
Results The majority (284, 72.8%) of the participants had no knowledge of or were slightly knowledgeable of the research
process, and more than 75% of the participants did not feel prepared or felt they were only slightly prepared to conduct
research. However, 257 (65.9%) of the participants believed it was very important to conduct research to advance the
medical imaging and radiation therapy profession. Eighty-eight participants who indicated that they had conducted
research named collecting data (34, 38.6%) and analyzing the results (20, 22.7%) as their greatest barriers. Participants
who had not conducted research (302, 77.4%) said that the main reason was because it was not required in their current
position (193, 63.9%). More than half of participants indicated that having time allocated to conduct research, conducting
research with an experienced individual, collaborating with a research mentor, and attending continuing education were
support measures that might enable them to conduct research.
Discussion It is essential that medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals be aware of the importance of conducting research and participating in scholarly activities so that the profession can advance as a distinct allied health discipline.
Opportunities to increase or improve research endeavors in the profession include encouraging professionals to publish
and present their research results, allocating time and resources to conduct research, and providing research mentorships.
Conclusion Increasing or improving the research being conducted among medical imaging technologists and radiation
therapists and making such endeavors a priority can advance the profession and lead to better service to patients.
R
Keywords conducting research, medical imaging, radiation therapy, challenges, motivating
factors, support measures to increase research
esearch in health care is necessary to guide best
practices, inform policies, and improve community health.1 An example of research in its
simplest form is collecting patients’ opinions
and perceptions of different treatment options using
surveys and questionnaires; more complex forms of
research include conducting interviews and focus group
sessions to obtain a deeper understanding of patients’
experiences after receiving a devastating diagnosis or
240
using an experimental design to test new medications
or innovative interventions. Regardless of the approach
or purpose, research in health care uses skills such as
observing, questioning, communicating, exploring,
testing, and predicting to discover new knowledge and
improve all aspects of patient care.1,2
Research conducted by allied health professionals,
including medical imaging technologists and radiation
therapists, is scarce.1,3,4 According to Borkowski et al,
asrt.org/publications
Original Article
Garlock-Heuer, Clark
allied health professionals need to be comfortable with
conducting research and interpreting results so they
can justify their services and improve the outcomes of
the patients they serve.1 In addition, Fauber and Legg
suggested that allied health professionals must generate
their own knowledge base for patient care to rise from
the technical to the professional level. 3 Similarly, Mundt
and Shanahan acknowledged that conducting research
was 1 of the benchmarks that defines a profession. 4 As
suggested in the literature, it is essential that medical
imaging and radiation therapy professionals engage
in research to better serve their patients and advance
the profession.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate medical
imaging and radiation therapy professionals’ perceptions
of conducting research. Specifically, this study examined:
how prepared medical imaging technologists and
radiation therapists feel to conduct research
challenges experienced while conducting research
reasons participants have not conducted research
factors that would motivate participants to conduct research
support measures that could increase the amount
of research being conducted in the medical imaging and radiation therapy profession
The results of this project might be used to develop
and implement interventions that address challenges
associated with conducting research and provide support for professionals interested in conducting research.
conducting research among health care professionals
were analyzed. A thematic analysis of the 10 selected
articles revealed 3 themes: perceptions and experiences of
health care professionals, challenges, and support measures.
The authors performed a search using the electronic resources of the medical research library at The
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.
Databases included CINAHL, MEDLINE, Ovid, and
PubMed, and searches were limited to peer-reviewed
journal articles that contained original research. No
date limiters were employed in an attempt to conduct a
comprehensive search. Keywords and phrases used in
the searches included perceptions of conducting research
in health care, allied health professions, radiologic technology, challenges, motivators, and support measures to increase
research in health care. Multiple articles were retrieved;
however, only articles that contained original research
that addressed experiences with and perceptions of
Perceptions and Experiences of
Health Care Professionals
In a study involving 534 pharmacists, Lee et al
reported that 77% of the pharmacist respondents had
participated in research, and 87% expressed interest in
conducting future research. 5 The pharmacist participants indicated that chart reviews and survey research
were the most common study designs used in prior
research and acknowledged that reviewing the literature
and generating hypotheses were their research-related
strengths.5 Participants identified the greatest researchrelated weakness to be performing statistical analyses.5
Pharmacists in this study revealed that personal satisfaction and opportunities to learn more about disease
states were motivators for conducting research.5 A
similar study examining the perceptions of 762 clinical laboratory scientists found that the participants
believed laboratory professionals have a responsibility
to conduct research, but less than 30% of the laboratory
participants were willing to publish their research findings.4
A survey of 62 nursing faculty members revealed
moderately negative attitudes toward conducting
research. 6 Although the nursing faculty members
believed it was important to conduct research specific
to their profession, they attributed the negative attitudes to the actual process of conducting research. 6
Other studies found low engagement levels for conducting research among nursing and medical school
educators.7-9 Albert et al’s survey of 2052 nurses found
that 22.4% had no experience with conducting research,
41.7% had served as a principal or secondary investigator, and 50.2% had assisted with research projects.7
Specific to medical imaging and radiation therapy,
Fauber and Legg reported low amounts of research
among professionals who held a doctoral degree.3 The
authors also suggested that radiologic technologists
and radiation therapists must participate in research
and scholarship activities to validate the profession as
a distinct allied health discipline. 3 Fauber and Legg
indicated that future research should address challenges
RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY, January/February 2020, Volume 91, Number 3
241
Literature Review
Original Article
Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Professionals’ Perceptions of Conducting Research
and barriers associated with conducting research in the
medical imaging and radiation therapy profession.
Challenges
Using a qualitative approach, Snelgrove and James
conducted 3 focus group sessions with 20 nurses to
explore perceived barriers to conducting research.10
Time was perceived as a significant barrier, with multiple nursing participants stating research projects had to
fit in with their daily work, which always took priority.10
Lee et al found that 92% of the pharmacist participants
cited lack of time as the most common barrier to conducting research. 5 Similarly, Darawad et al stated that
insufficient time to conduct research was the greatest
perceived barrier among the 62 nursing faculty participants. 6 In addition, Mundt and Shanahan identified not
enough time and inadequate resources as common barriers
to conducting research in the clinical laboratory setting.4
Specific to medical imaging and radiation therapy,
Metcalf et al surveyed 163 professionals who held doctoral degrees and found the top perceived barrier to
conducting research was lack of time to write (60%).11
Other barriers included distractions such as travel
and competing work demands (40%), and research
not being a requirement of the participants’ positions
(35%).11 Many of the participants were very comfortable
with designing research studies (42%) and somewhat
comfortable with performing and interpreting statistical data analyses (39%).11 Metcalf et al suggested that
strategies to support medical imaging and radiation
therapy professionals in their research endeavors should
be aimed at minimizing those perceived barriers.11
Support Measures
Pharmacist participants in Lee et al’s study indicated
that opportunities to join existing research teams (73%)
and mentoring programs (70%) were the most popular
measures for encouraging future research.5 Research
mentorships also were suggested in the clinical laboratory and nursing settings. 4,6,8 Similarly, Metcalf et al
recommended mentoring as a way to support research
endeavors among medical imaging technologists and
radiation therapists.11 Darawad et al suggested other
support measures to assist nursing faculty members
with conducting research, including providing research
242
training, allocating time for research, and identifying
sources for research funding. 6 Loke et al also acknowledged the need to apportion time and funding to
provide additional opportunities for nursing research.8
O’Brien and Hathaway discussed the use of an
internship during which nursing faculty and undergraduate students collaborated on research projects.12 Both
students and faculty viewed the internship as a positive
experience that provided meaningful hands-on skills
with patients and generated interest in future research
endeavors.12 The nursing faculty participants also
indicated that the internship provided opportunities
to identify potential graduate and doctoral students.12
During the internship, the students experienced a barrier that involved delays beyond their control, such as
equipment malfunctions, that interfered with collecting
the necessary data. The faculty experienced challenges
that also included delays beyond their control and
obtaining ethics approval to conduct the research studies.12
Methods
Using a descriptive survey approach, a random
sample of American Society of Radiologic
Technologists (ASRT) members was invited to share
their experiences with conducting research, including challenges, reasons for not engaging in research,
potential motivators, and support measures to enhance
their ability to conduct research in the medical imaging and radiation therapy profession. The University
of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center’s institutional
review board approved this research study. The guiding
research questions for this study were:
What experiences and perceptions do
medical imaging and radiation therapy
professionals have with conducting research?
What challenges do medical imaging and
radiation therapy professionals experience
when conducting research?
What factors would motivate medical
imaging and radiation therapy professionals
to conduct research?
What support measures would increase
the amount of research being conducted
in the medical imaging and radiation
therapy profession?
asrt.org/publications
Original Article
Garlock-Heuer, Clark
Sample Selection
Participants for this study included a random sample
of 10 000 ASRT members, who were selected in an
attempt to obtain a good representation of the medical
imaging and radiation therapy profession. Applying a
simple random sampling technique, personnel from the
ASRT Research Department used a random algorithm
function to extract the sample from the membership database. All ASRT members had an equal and
independent chance of being selected to be part of the
sample. Participation in this study was voluntary, and
participants’ personal information, such as names and
email addresses, was not identified or compromised
because the ASRT Research Department sent the
survey out on behalf of the researchers. Consent was
implied when the participants chose to begin the survey.
Instrumentation and Pilot Study
The researchers created an original survey that
contained 20 items that asked participants to:
rate their knowledge of the research process
describe their experiences with conducting
research
identify any challenges associated with conducting research or reasons they had not conducted
research
select factors and support measures to increase
the amount of research conducted in the profession
provide demographic information
Depending on the participants’ responses, not all 20
items had to be answered. The researchers created the
survey using Qualtrics, an electronic survey tool, and
used the anonymity feature to ensure confidentiality of
the results.
The researchers conducted a pilot study to test the
survey instrument as well as the data collection and
analysis procedures. Twenty-five registered radiologic technologists, radiation therapists, and medical
dosimetrists, all employees at The University of Texas
MD Anderson Cancer Center, were randomly selected
from the online directory and asked to complete the
survey and identify any content that could be added
or removed, improve the wording of survey items, and
inform the researchers of any problematic areas. The
RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY, January/February 2020, Volume 91, Number 3
pilot participants were asked to complete the survey
twice: once as an experienced researcher and the second
as a person who had not conducted research. Feedback
from pilot study participants revealed a need to reword
several survey items for clarity. In addition, personnel
from the ASRT Research Department reviewed the
instrument for content and clarity. The results of
the pilot study were exported from Qualtrics to
SPSS (IBM), a software program for interactive statistical analysis, to ensure descriptive statistics and
percentages could be calculated readily. The pilot
responses were deleted before the start of the actual
study and were not included in the data analyses.
Procedures
After institutional review board approval was
granted and the pilot study was conducted, the ASRT
Research Department sent an email to the random sample extending an invitation to participate in the study.
The email communication contained a cover letter and
a link to the survey. The cover letter explained the purpose of the study, provided instructions to complete the
survey, stated details on implied consent, and emphasized that participation in the study was voluntary. The
participants also were informed that completion of the
survey was estimated to take no more than 5 minutes.
After 5 weeks, the ASRT Research Department sent
a second reminder email to invitees who had not completed the survey. A third reminder email was sent 7
weeks after the initial invitation. After 8 weeks, the link
was deactivated and the survey was closed. The results
of the survey were exported from Qualtrics to SPSS,
and descriptive statistics and percentages were calculated to analyze the data. Considering most of the survey
contained multiple-choice items, including Likert-type
statements, researchers calculated percentages for each
response. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate
the participants’ average age and years of work experience, along with the standard deviations.
Results
Of the 10 000 members who were sent the email
invitation, only 9531 members received it, most likely
because of nonworking email addresses. Of those, 539
completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of
243
Original Article
Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Professionals’ Perceptions of Conducting Research
5.7%. Importantly, 142 responses were discarded and
not included in the data analyses because they were
incomplete. Of the 397 completed responses, 7 individuals indicated that they would not like to begin the
survey. Considering researchers analyzed 390 responses
for this study, a completion rate of 72.4% was obtained.
The margin of error for this sample size was 4.86% at
the 95% confidence interval. Cronbach alpha revealed an
internal consistency of .721 on the Likert-scaled items.
Table 1
Demographic Information
The majority of the participants identified as women
(276, 70.8%), some held associate degrees (177, 45.4%),
and most classified themselves as staff technologists,
therapists, or dosimetrists (204, 52.3%). The mean age
of the participants was 48.3 years (SD 12.1), with
an age range of 22 to 71 years; the mean years of work
experience in the medical imaging and radiation therapy profession was 20.7 (SD 13.4), with a range of
1 to 56 years. Table 1 displays the participants’ demographic characteristics.
Education
Experiences with Conducting Research
The majority of participants was slightly knowledgeable (158, 40.5%) or not at all knowledgeable (126,
32.3%) about the research process. Only 88 (22.6%) of
the participants were moderately knowledgeable, and 18
(4.6%) were very knowledgeable about the research process. In addition, the participants reported that they did
not feel prepared (176, 45.1%) or felt slightly prepared
(127, 32.6%) to conduct research; 70 (17.9%) participants indicated that they were moderately prepared to
conduct research, and 17 (4.4%) selected very prepared.
Regarding their exposure to the research process in
their entry-level medical imaging or radiation therapy
programs, the participants identified no exposure at all
(170, 43.6%), very little exposure (119, 30.5%), some
exposure (66, 16.9%), moderate exposure (20, 5.1%),
and significant exposure (15, 3.8%). Moreover, the
majority (302, 77.4%) of the participants revealed that
they had never conducted research specific to the medical imaging and radiation therapy profession. Of the
88 (22.6%) participants who indicated that they had
conducted research, 29 (33%) served as a primary investigator and 24 (27.3%) as a secondary investigator.
244
Participant Demographic Characteristicsa
Demographic Characteristic
n (%)
Gender Identity
Men
107 (27.4)
Women
276 (70.8)
Prefer not to disclose
5 (1.3)
Other
2 (0.5)
b
Associate degree
177 (45.4)
Bachelor’s degree
108 (27.7)
Master’s degree
53 (13.6)
Doctoral degree
8
Other
44 (11.3)
c
(2.1)
Position
Administrator
10 (2.6)
Assistant chief technologist/therapist/
dosimetrist
4 (1.0)
Chief technologist/therapist/dosimetrist
21 (5.4)
Corporate/commercial representatives
(eg, sales and application specialists)
3 (0.8)
Education: instructor/faculty
18 (4.6)
Education: program director
18 (4.6)
Locum tenens (temporary staff)
5 (1.3)
Senior/lead technologist/therapist/dosimetrist
48 (12.3)
Staff technologist/therapist/dosimetrist
206 (52.8)
Supervisor/manager
15 (3.8)
Otherd
42 (10.8)
a
N = 390; some percentages might not total 100 because of rounding.
Gender identity not specified.
c
Responses included certificate and hospital-based programs.
d
Responses included clinical education manager, department chair, director of credentialing organization, physicist, mobile technologist, radiation
inspector, radiologist assistant, registered nurse, recruiter for temporary
radiology staffing company, retired, and not currently employed.
b
Of those 88 participants, the majority (68, 77.3%)
had not published their research results in a medical
imaging or radiation therapy journal; 71 (80.7%) of
the participants indicated that they had not presented
their research results at a medical imaging or radiation
asrt.org/publications
Original Article
Garlock-Heuer, Clark
therapy conference. Incidentally, 17 (19.3%) of those 88
participants stated that they had not experienced any
challenges when conducting research. Table 2 lists the
challenges that the remaining participants experienced
while conducting research. Other challenges the participants mentioned included:
difficulty using various writing styles
conducting true experimental research
obtaining adequate resources to ensure validity
and reliability
lack of time
Table 3 provides the reasons 302 participants had
chosen not to conduct research specific to medical
imaging and radiation therapy. Other reasons the participants provided included:
lack of confidence
too new to the profession
lack of assistance
lack of opportunity
no support from administration
too busy
too old
Motivating Factors for Conducting Research
The factors those 302 participants identified as motivators to conducting research were:
general interest in the topic (152, 50.3%)
compensation (147, 48.7%)
career progression (143, 47.4%)
advancement of the profession (127, 42.1%)
better understanding of the research process (122,
40.4%)
knowledge improvement (114, 37.7%)
personal satisfaction (90, 29.8%)
mentor support (73, 24.2%)
recognition in the profession (66, 21.9%)
nothing (32, 10.6%)
Support Measures to Increase Research in the
Profession
The participants (N = 390) believed it was very
important (257, 65.9%) to conduct research to advance
the medical imaging and radiation therapy profession,
followed by moderately important (91, 23.3%), slightly
important (31, 7.9%), and not important at all (11, 2.8%).
RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY, January/February 2020, Volume 91, Number 3
Table 2
Challenges When Conducting Researcha
Challenge
n (%)
Collecting data
34 (38.6)
Analyzing the results
20 (22.7)
Obtaining an appropriate sample size
19 (21.6)
Difficulty designing a study
16 (18.2)
Developing or finding an instrument
14 (15.9)
Interpreting the results
14 (15.9)
Reviewing the literature
13 (14.8)
Finding a relevant topic
10 (11.4)
Receiving institutional review board or ethics
approval
10 (11.4)
a
n = 88; participants could select all that applied.
Table 3
Reasons for Not Conducting Researcha
Reason
n (%)
Not required in my current position
193 (63.9)
Lack of time
72 (23.8)
Not interested
70 (23.2)
Lack of knowledge
64 (21.2)
Lack of resources
63 (20.9)
Difficulty understanding statistics or data analyses
22 (7.3)
Do not see the benefits
2 (0.7)
a
n = 302; participants could select all that applied.
Table 4 lists the support measures the participants
thought would increase the amount of research being
conducted in the medical imaging and radiation therapy profession. Incidentally, 85 (21.8%) stated that they
were not certain which support measures would help
them conduct research, and 12 (3.1%) did not believe
any support measure would increase their research
endeavors. Other support measures the participants
identified were:
expanding the scope of practice to include
research projects
having formal collegiate research training
245
Original Article
Medical Imaging and Radiation Therapy Professionals’ Perceptions of Conducting Research
Table 4
Support Measures to Increase Research in the
Professiona
Measure
N (%)
Having time allocated to conduct research
243 (62.3)
Conducting research with an experienced
individual
219 (56.2)
Collaborating with a research mentor
206 (52.8)
Attending continuing education specific to
conducting research
201 (51.5)
Attending a research workshop
162 (41.5)
Completing online research modules that cover
how to conduct research
133 (34.1)
a
N = 390; participants could select all that applied.
making an entry-level bachelor’s degree a requirement for practice so students can be exposed to
more research and evidence-based practices
Discussion
Similar to other allied health professionals, the
results revealed that the medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals in this study were not
actively engaged in research practices.1,4,5,9 Although 257
(65.9%) of the participants believed it was very important to conduct research to advance the profession,
many of the participants were only slightly knowledgeable (158, 40.5%) about the research process and did
not feel prepared (176, 45.1%) to conduct research.
Only 88 (22.6%) of the participants acknowledged that
they had conducted research. Notably, 43.6% of the
participants had received no exposure to the research
process in their entry-level medical imaging or radiation therapy programs. This lack of exposure could be
attributed to 45.4% of the participants having completed an associate degree program in which there is less
time to focus on content such as research and statistics.
Regardless, opportunities to teach working medical
imaging and radiation therapy professionals about the
research process should be explored.
Of those 88 participants who had conducted
research, 68 (77.3%) had not published their
research results in a medical imaging or radiation
246
therapy journal, and 71 (80.7%) had not presented their
research results at a medical imaging or radiation therapy conference. Similar results were seen with clinical
laboratory scientists. 4 Again, opportunities to encourage publication and presentation of research must
become a priority so results can be disseminated and
the findings used to improve patient care and advance
the profession. Those 88 participants identified collecting data (34, 38.6%) to be the greatest challenge when
conducting research, followed by analyzing the results
(20, 22.7%) and obtaining an appropriate sample size
(19, 21.6%). Lee et al found performing statistical analyses to be the greatest research-related weakness among
their pharmacist participants.5 Certainly, support
measures or continuing education opportunities that
address data collection and analysis would be beneficial
to medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals. Other challenges provided by those 88 participants
were difficulty using various writing styles, conducting
true experimental research, obtaining adequate resources to ensure validity and reliability, and not having time.
The 2 most common reasons 302 participants
stated for not conducting research were that it was
not required in their position (193, 63.9%) and a lack
of time (72, 23.8%). Similar results were identified in
the literature, where nursing and other allied health
professions suggested lack of time as a major barrier to
conducting research. 4,5,10 Interestingly, Metcalf et al also
revealed that their doctorally prepared medical imaging
and radiation therapy professional participants cited
that research was not required for their job and thus
was a major barrier.11 This similar finding suggests that
many medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals are not aware of the importance of participating
in research and scholarship activities in advancing the
profession as a distinct allied health discipline. 3
Several participants reported lack of confidence
and lack of opportunity as additional reasons they
had not conducted research. It might be necessary for
professional organizations to organize opportunities
to promote collaborative research efforts. In addition,
those 302 participants identified several motivating factors for conducting future research including general
interest in the topic (152, 50.3%), compensation (147,
48.7%), and career progression (143, 47.4%). Although
asrt.org/publications
Original Article
Garlock-Heuer, Clark
these findings conflicted with Lee et al’s study involving pharmacists, in which personal satisfaction was the
greatest motivator, it might be beneficial to assist medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals with
research funding opportunities, which would allow
them to be compensated for their efforts.5
Support measures to increase the amount of research
being conducted in the profession were:
having time allocated to conduct research (243,
62.3%)
conducting research with an experienced individual (219, 56.2%)
collaborating with a research mentor (206, 52.8%)
attending continuing education specific to conducting research (201, 51.5%)
These findings were similar to other studies that
discussed research training, additional time, and
mentorships as support measures. 4-6,8 By providing
such support, opportunities to increase the amount of
research medical imaging and radiation therapy professionals are conducting might be what is needed to elevate
the profession as a distinct health care discipline.
Additional support measures participants noted
included expanding the scope of practice to include
research projects, having formal collegiate research
training, and making an entry-level bachelor’s degree
a requirement for practice so students are exposed to
more research and evidence-based practices.
Limitations
This research study is not without limitations. First,
the small response rate and descriptive nature of the
study make it difficult to apply the findings to the entire
medical imaging and radiation therapy profession.
The small sample size also limits data analyses and
does not allow for evaluation of various relationships
between variables. Although the sample size is small,
the results provide crucial data that might increase the
amount of research being conducted in the profession.
Along those same lines, not all medical imaging and
radiation therapy professionals are members of ASRT,
which further limits generalizability of the results. A
larger sample would address these issues and minimize
participant selection bias. As with any survey research,
the use of self-reporting data limited this study. Social
RADIOLOGIC TECHNOLOGY, January/February 2020, Volume 91, Number 3
desirability bias is an additional limitation. Also, this
survey did not differentiate among medical imaging,
radiation therapy, and medical dosimetry professionals.
Considering a bachelor’s degree is required to take the
medical dosimetry certification examination, it might
have been helpful to separate the data further by specific professions.
The survey also did not contain a screening question to allow only registered technologists, therapists,
or dosimetrists to complete the survey, resulting in the
inclusion of a physicist and a registered nurse in the
sample. Another problematic area involved the primary
responsibility survey item. Some participants might
work in a facility where chief technologist/therapist/
dosimetrist is used interchangeably with senior/lead
technologist/therapist/dosimetrist. Because of the
alphabetical ordering of the choices, some participants
might not have selected the best option. In addition,
the survey instrument asked only about publishing
research results, not the submission of research results.
Certainly, a medical imaging or radiation therapy
professional might have submitted a manuscript for
publication and had it rejected. However, phrasing
the question to ask whether they had submitted their
research for peer-review, rather than asking whether
their research had been published in an academic journal, could have provided additional findings. A final
limitation involved oversight on the researchers’ part to
list research internship as an additional support measure, which was indicated in the literature
