Leadership Commitment , defined as: “Leadership makes worker safety, health, and well-being a clear priority for the entire organization. They drive accountability and provide the necessary resources and environment to create positive working conditions.” This construct was included in our Indicators of Integration; items in the WISH Assessment were adapted from this prior measure, as well as from other sources. 1 , 41 , 51 , 52 Organizational leadership has been linked to an array of worker safety, health and wellbeing outcomes, 53 , 54 including organizational safety climate, 55 , 56 job-related wellbeing, 57 , 58 workplace injuries, 59 , 60 and health behaviors. 61 , 62 This element recognizes that top management is ultimately responsible for setting priorities that define worker and worksite safety and health as part of the organization’s vision and mission. 14 , 16 Leadership roles include providing the resources needed for implementing best practices related to worker safety, health and wellbeing; establishing accountability for implementation of relevant policies and practices; and effectively communicating these priorities through formal and informal channels. 51 , 52
Participation , defined as: “Stakeholders at every level of an organization, including labor unions or other worker organizations if present, help plan and carry out efforts to protect and promote worker safety and health.” Many organizations have mechanisms in place to engage employees and managers in decision making and planning. These mechanisms may be used in planning and implementing integrated policies and programs, for example through joint worker-management committees that combine efforts to protect and promote worker safety, health and wellbeing. 7 , 63 , 64 Employee participation in decision-making facilitates a broader organizational culture of health, safety and wellbeing. Participation also includes encouraging employees to identify and report threats to safety and health, without fear of retaliation and with the expectation that their concerns will be addressed. Items included were adapted from the Indicators of Integration 1 and a self-assessment checklist from the Center for the Promotion of Health in the New England Workplace. 65
Policies, programs and practices that foster supportive working conditions , defined as: “The organization enhances worker safety, health, and well-being with policies and practices that improve working conditions.” These policies, programs and practices are central to the conceptual model presented in Figure 1 . Items include measures of the physical work environment and the organization of work (i.e., psychosocial factors, job tasks, demands, and resources), and are drawn from multiple sources. 1 , 41 , 66 – 69 The focus on working conditions is based on principles of prevention articulated in a hierarchy of controls framework, which has been applied within TWH. 10 , 70 Eliminating or reducing recognized hazards, whether in the physical work environment or the organizational environment, provides the most effective means of reducing exposure to potential for hazards on the job. Policies and processes to protect workers from physical hazards include routine inspections of the work environment, with mechanisms in place for correction of identified hazards, as well as policies that support safe and healthy behaviors, such as tobacco control policies. A supportive work organization includes safeguards against job strain, work overload, and harassment, 7 , 71 – 74 as well as supports for workers as they address work-life balance, return to work after an illness or injury, and take entitled breaks, including meal breaks as well as sick and vacation time. 75 , 76
Comprehensive and collaborative strategies , defined as: “Employees from across the organization work together to develop comprehensive health and safety initiatives.” Measures were adapted from our Indicators of Integration 1 and also relied on recent recommendations from the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 41 Although efforts to protect and promote worker safety and health have traditionally functioned independently, this construct acknowledges the benefits derived from collaboration across departments within an organization to protect and promote worker safety and health, both through policies about the work environment as well as education for workers. These efforts carry through into the selection of subcontractors and vendors, recognizing their impact on working conditions.
Adherence , defined as: “ The organization adheres to federal and state regulations, as well as ethical norms, that advance worker safety, health, and well-being.” The importance of this construct has been recognized by multiple organizations, whose contributions and metrics were incorporated in the measures included here. 7 , 77 – 79 Employers have a legal obligation to provide a safe and healthy work environment. 7 , 68 There is also significant agreement that any system that includes health and safety metrics must include safeguards for employee confidentiality and privacy. 7 , 41
Data-driven change , defined as: “Regular evaluation guides an organization’s priority setting, decision making, and continuous improvement of worker safety, health, and well-being initiatives.” Building health metrics into corporate reporting underscores the importance of worker health and safety as a business priority. 16 , 80 Feedback to leadership based on evaluation and monitoring of integrated programs, policies and practices can provide a basis for ongoing quality improvement. An integrated system that reports outcomes related both to occupational health as well as health behaviors and other health and wellbeing indicators can point to shared root causes within the conditions of work. 1 , 14
We tested the WISH Assessment in three rounds of cognitive testing with a total of 19 participants. (See Appendix 1 for changes made to the items across the three rounds of testing.) On average, participants completed the self-administered survey in about 10–15 minutes, and the cognitive interviews took an average of 45 minutes. In the first round of cognitive testing, three participants completed a web version of the survey, and five, a paper-and-pencil version. Because we found no differences in concerns raised, the second round used only a paper survey, whereas the third included web respondents to confirm no differences in the final instrument. Changes made to the survey items were based on input from multiple respondents over the three rounds of interviews, and did not rely specifically on input from any one individual.
For items with uniform interpretation, revisions were made if respondents suggested a word or phrase that would clarify the question that investigators felt retained substantive focus. In addition, some items were dropped because they revealed multiple sources of problems, were too difficult to answer, or were identified as redundant. The first round of testing led to the removal of seven items and the modifying of 24 items. The second round of cognitive testing revealed that problems with the question wording remained with 15 questions in the context of the full survey. No additional questions were removed. These specific questions were updated and re-tested among three participants.
Throughout the cognitive testing process, we found several items to have either ambiguous terminology resulting in non-uniform or restrictive interpretation, inadequate framing of key terms and constructs, or lack of knowledge or perceived ability to provide an answer, resulting in poor information retrieval or mapping to the construct. Items measuring integration or collaboration within an organization were more often identified as problematic; to address this concern, we included a description of these constructs in the survey’s introduction to frame the survey for respondents. Although there was uniform interpretation of items asking about employee’s living wage, some respondents reported they did not have knowledge to provide an accurate answer. Most other items revealed uniform interpretation and no concerns regarding information retrieval or selecting response categories.
Looking at the items by construct, we identified particular concerns with items measuring two domains: “ policies, programs, and practices that foster supportive working conditions” and “adherence ” to norms and regulations. To address these concerns, we revised these items by improving the description of constructs or the terms in the respective sections’ introductions, using less ambiguous wording and integrating appropriate examples as necessary. We found commonalities across the responses in the remaining four domains, and describe our specific remediation process for each of these domains:
In round 1, we found a lack of clarity for the concept of “leadership.” For example, one respondent from the health care industry reported that: “[senior leaders and middle managers] should be distinguished and not conflated because there are several layers of management.” As a result, several respondents expressed difficulty retrieving accurate information due to level-specific answers. One respondent from a laboratory research and development company noted “[…] leadership communicate their commitment to safety and health through written policies. If you were to add supervisors – people closer to the front line – it would be different.” We addressed this concern by rewriting the introduction for this domain to clearly define “leadership commitment” and remove mention of leadership levels. However, we retained the wording “[…] such as senior leaders and middle managers, […]” in two items to reflect that organizations have channels through which commitment is communicated or enforced.
The questions for collaborative participation were largely identified as clear and uniformly interpreted. However, there was lack of clarity regarding who the key stakeholders were, particularly in the introduction. In addition, respondents reported that the introduction was too wordy and had a high literacy bar. Given these concerns and the suggestion that the use of the term “culture” was too academic, so we omitted use of this term. Some respondents expressed difficulty retrieving an appropriate answer due to this lack of clear framing of items in the introduction. We addressed this concern by rewriting the introduction to emphasize the definition of “participation” in the context of an organization’s activities that ensure worker safety and health. Feedback from round 2 found that this helped frame the item set more clearly. However, the word “encourage” in “In this organizational culture, managers encourage employees to get involved in making decisions” was identified as ambiguous. This was changed to “[…] seek employee involvement and feedback […]”.
The most common feedback, expressed among several participants in multiple industries, for items in this domain was difficulty with the concept of “comprehensive,” i.e., that programming should address both prevention of illness and injury and promotion of worker health and safety. To a lesser extent, respondents also found difficulty with the “collaborative” concept. For example, some respondents including those from the hospital industry and in risk management, expressed difficulty responding to an item that included both “prevent” and “enhance,” which were perceived as “two different questions within this question.” We addressed these concerns by more clearly defining the two core constructs in a revised introduction. Moreover, we revised items to retain both “prevent and promote” while more clearly framing the question in context of collaboration. For example, the item “This company has a comprehensive approach to worker wellbeing that includes efforts to prevent work-related illness and injury as well as to enhance worker health” was revised to “This company has a comprehensive approach to worker wellbeing. This includes collaboration across departments in efforts to prevent work-related illness and injury and to promote worker health.”
For this domain, we found evidence of poor cueing for the concepts of integration and coordination in the context of using data to produce organizational change. For example, several respondents from the hospital industry expressed that they did not understand what was meant by “integrated” in the context of “Summary reports on integrated policies and programs are presented to leadership on a regular basis, while also protecting employee confidentiality,” or “coordinated system” in context of “Data related to employee safety and health outcomes are integrated within a coordinated system.” Remediation focused on clarifying the context and definitions for integration and coordination. First, the introduction was revised to explicitly define data-driven change. Secondly, items were reworded to clarify integration and coordination. For example, “Summary reports on integrated policies and programs are presented to leadership on a regular basis, while also protecting employee confidentiality” was revised to “Data from multiple sources on health, safety, and wellbeing are integrated and presented to leadership on a regular basis.”
Our analyses also underscored commonalities across industries even when these issues seemed industry-specific. For example, comments from several participants suggested that a product-based mission may often dominate concerns about worker safety and health. In healthcare, this may be manifested by prioritizing patient care and safety over worker health and safety, or in other industries by a focus on production or timeline goals. Across industries, there was widespread agreement that Employee Assistant Programs was the primary resource for supporting employees dealing with personal or family issues.
Effective policies, programs and practices contribute to improvements in worker health, safety and wellbeing, as well as to enterprise outcomes such as improved employee morale, reduced absence and turnover, potentially reduced healthcare costs, and improved quality of services. 2 , 40 , 81 – 84 This manuscript presents the Workplace Integrated Safety and Health (WISH) Assessment, designed to evaluate the extent to which organizations implement best practice recommendations for an integrated, systems approach to protecting and promoting worker safety, health and wellbeing. This instrument builds on the Indicators of Integration, previously published and validated by the Center for Work, Health and Wellbeing. 1 , 42 , 43 We have expanded this tool based on the conceptual model presented in Figure 1 , 2 which prioritizes working conditions as determinants of worker safety, health and wellbeing. In addition, the WISH Assessment is designed to measure the extent to which an organization implements best practice recommendations. These constructs have also been used to inform in the Center’s guidelines for implementing best practice integrated approaches. 8
A growing range of metrics are available to assess organizational approaches to worker safety and health. The Integrated Health & Safety Index (IHS Index), created by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in collaboration with the Underwriters Laboratories, focuses on translating health and safety into value for businesses using three dimensions: economic, environmental and social standards. 41 By focusing on value, this measure has the potential to bolster the business case for health and safety. 41 , 85 The HERO Health and Well-being Best Practices Scorecard in Collaboration with Mercer is an online tool that allows employers to receive emailed feedback on their health and well-being practices. 86 Similarly, the American Heart Association’s Workplace Health Achievement Index provides an on-line self-assessment scorecard that includes comparisons with other companies. 87 The health metrics designed by the Vitality Institute include both a long and short form questionnaire, both with automatic scoring. 88 The Center for the Promotion of Health in the New England Workplace (CPH-NEW) has developed a tool to assess organizational readiness for implementing an integrated approach 11 and is developing a tool that focuses on participatory engagement of workers, with the goal of involving workers in the process of prioritizing health and safety issues and then developing and evaluating the proposed solutions. 89 Other measures of the work environment, such as the Health and Safety Executive Managements Standards Indicator Tool used in the United Kingdom, are designed to be taken by workers and so can provide detailed information on conditions as they are experienced by workers, but do not capture company-level policies and programs. 90 The WISH Assessment, designed to assess a company’s use of best practices for health and safety, is substantially shorter than the IHS Index and the HERO Scorecard, does not require the compilation of metrics and does not use individual employee data. In addition, in comparison to these other measures, the WISH Assessment can be used to guide organizations towards best practices and can be easily completed by organizations that might not have the resources to use the more extensive assessments.
Next steps in the development of the WISH Assessment include validation of the instrument across multiple samples, and design and testing of a scoring system. We validated the Indicators of Integration in two samples and found it to have convergent validity and high internal consistency, and to express one unified factor even when slight changes were made to adapt the measure. 42 , 43 We expect to follow a similar approach in validating this tool and assessing its dimensionality in large samples using factor analysis. Our goal is to design a scoring system that would be appropriate for both applied and research applications. As such, we expect the scoring algorithm to be simple enough for auto-calculation.
This tool may ultimately serve multiple purposes. As a research tool, it may provide a measure of workplace best practices that can be examined as determinants of worker safety and health outcomes. After being validated, the WISH Assessment may be used to explore organizational characteristics that may be associated with implementation of best practices. This instrument also responds to calls for practical tools for organizations implementing an integrated approach and focusing on working conditions. 41 The Center used the Indicators of Integration as part of a larger assessment process in three small-to-medium manufacturing businesses to inform organizations’ priority setting and decision making around the integration of occupational safety and health and health promotion. 91 In-person group discussions with key staff and executive leaders were used to rate each question on the scorecard, resulting in actionable steps based on identified gaps. Similarly, a validated WISH Assessment could be translated into a scorecard to be used to inform priority setting, decision making and to monitor changes over time in conditions of work and related health and safety outcomes. The Center has also applied the constructs defined in the WISH Assessment in its new best practice guidelines, 8 which include suggestions for formal and informal policies and practices ( Table 2 ).
Example Policies and Practices by each WISH construct.
Construct | Formal Policies | Informal Practices |
---|---|---|
Physical environment Work organization Psychosocial environment | Physical environment Work organization Psychosocial environment | |
McLellan D, Moore W, Nagler E, Sorensen G. 2017. Implementing an integrated approach: Weaving worker health, safety, and well-being into the fabric of your organization. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute: Boston, MA. http://centerforworkhealth.sph.harvard.edu/
These indicators describe policies, programs and practices within the control of a specific organization or enterprise, and are most likely to apply to organizations that employ approximately 100 or more employees. The cognitive testing conducted to refine the items included in the WISH Assessment included representatives from organizations in selected settings; the generalizability of these results may therefore be restricted to similar types of organizations. There remains a need for exploring how this measure may function in different industries and across organizations of varying size. Although the purpose of the WISH instrument is to provide a measure that might be broadly useful across industries, we also recognize that each industry faces particular challenges due to the nature of what they do; supplementary questions may be needed to address these industry-specific concerns. Although this measure has not yet been validated, we believe it is important to share it and to explore opportunities for collaboration with other researchers interested in testing its psychometric properties and across populations and settings, in order to further develop this tool. It will ultimately be important as well to develop mechanisms for scoring this instrument, taking account potential weighting across the domains included.
Growing evidence clearly documents the benefits to be derived from integrated systems approaches for protecting and promoting worker safety, health and wellbeing. Practical, validated measures of best practices that are supported by existing evidence and do not place an undue burden on respondents are needed to support systematic study and organizational change. In cognitive testing, we demonstrated that the items included in this instrument effectively assess the defined constructs. Our goal was to create a measure that will be broadly useful and valid across industry, and might contribute to understanding differences and similarities by industry. Thus, the general applicability of this instrument is a strength in that it would allow for comparisons across industries, if so desired by substantive research. We also recognize the potential benefits of industry-specific versions of this instrument which may use this broader instrument as a base set of measures while also expanding on areas that are unique to a given industry. This may help increase understanding of industry-specific health and safety challenges. The WISH Assessment holds promise as a tool that may inform organizational priority setting and guide research around causal pathways influencing implementation and outcomes related to these approaches.
Supplemental digital content, acknowledgments.
This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (U19 OH008861) for the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Center for Work, Health and Well-being.
Conflict of Interest noted: None
This article provides an overview and comparison of the different types of evaluation methodologies used to assess the performance, effectiveness, quality, or impact of services, programs, and policies. There are several methodologies both qualitative and quantitative, including surveys, interviews, observations, case studies, focus groups, and more…In this essay, we will discuss the most commonly used qualitative and quantitative evaluation methodologies in the M&E field.
Table of Contents
Evaluation methodologies are the methods and techniques used to measure the performance, effectiveness, quality, or impact of various interventions, services, programs, and policies. Evaluation is essential for decision-making, improvement, and innovation, as it helps stakeholders identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats and make informed decisions to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their operations.
Evaluation methodologies can be used in various fields and industries, such as healthcare, education, business, social services, and public policy. The choice of evaluation methodology depends on the specific goals of the evaluation, the type and level of data required, and the resources available for conducting the evaluation.
The importance of evaluation methodologies lies in their ability to provide evidence-based insights into the performance and impact of the subject being evaluated. This information can be used to guide decision-making, policy development, program improvement, and innovation. By using evaluation methodologies, stakeholders can assess the effectiveness of their operations and make data-driven decisions to improve their outcomes.
Overall, understanding evaluation methodologies is crucial for individuals and organizations seeking to enhance their performance, effectiveness, and impact. By selecting the appropriate evaluation methodology and conducting a thorough evaluation, stakeholders can gain valuable insights and make informed decisions to improve their operations and achieve their goals.
Evaluation methodologies can be categorized into two main types based on the type of data they collect: qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative methodologies collect non-numerical data, such as words, images, or observations, while quantitative methodologies collect numerical data that can be analyzed statistically. Here is an overview and comparison of the main differences between qualitative and quantitative evaluation methodologies:
Qualitative Evaluation Methodologies:
Quantitative Evaluation Methodologies:
Choosing between qualitative and quantitative evaluation methodologies depends on the specific goals of the evaluation, the type and level of data required, and the resources available for conducting the evaluation. Some evaluations may use a mixed-methods approach that combines both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis techniques to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the subject being evaluated.
Program evaluation methodologies encompass a diverse set of approaches and techniques used to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and impact of programs and interventions. These methodologies provide systematic frameworks for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data to determine the extent to which program objectives are being met and to identify areas for improvement. Common program evaluation methodologies include quantitative methods such as experimental designs, quasi-experimental designs, and surveys, as well as qualitative approaches like interviews, focus groups, and case studies.
Each methodology offers unique advantages and limitations depending on the nature of the program being evaluated, the available resources, and the research questions at hand. By employing rigorous program evaluation methodologies, organizations can make informed decisions, enhance program effectiveness, and maximize the use of resources to achieve desired outcomes.
Catch HR’s eye instantly?
Premier global development resume service since 2012
Stand Out with a Pro Resume
Qualitative methodologies are increasingly being used in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact and effectiveness of programs and interventions. Qualitative methodologies can help to explore the underlying reasons and contexts that contribute to program outcomes and identify areas for improvement. Here are some common qualitative methodologies used in M&E:
Interviews involve one-on-one or group discussions with stakeholders to collect data on their experiences, perspectives, and perceptions. Interviews can provide rich and detailed data on the effectiveness of a program, the factors that contribute to its success or failure, and the ways in which it can be improved.
Observations involve the systematic and objective recording of behaviors and interactions of stakeholders in a natural setting. Observations can help to identify patterns of behavior, the effectiveness of program interventions, and the ways in which they can be improved.
Document review involves the analysis of program documents, such as reports, policies, and procedures, to understand the program context, design, and implementation. Document review can help to identify gaps in program design or implementation and suggest ways in which they can be improved.
PRA is a participatory approach that involves working with communities to identify and analyze their own problems and challenges. It involves using participatory techniques such as mapping, focus group discussions, and transect walks to collect data on community perspectives, experiences, and priorities. PRA can help ensure that the evaluation is community-driven and culturally appropriate, and can provide valuable insights into the social and cultural factors that influence program outcomes.
Key informant interviews are in-depth, open-ended interviews with individuals who have expert knowledge or experience related to the program or issue being evaluated. Key informants can include program staff, community leaders, or other stakeholders. These interviews can provide valuable insights into program implementation and effectiveness, and can help identify areas for improvement.
Ethnography is a qualitative method that involves observing and immersing oneself in a community or culture to understand their perspectives, values, and behaviors. Ethnographic methods can include participant observation, interviews, and document analysis, among others. Ethnography can provide a more holistic understanding of program outcomes and impacts, as well as the broader social context in which the program operates.
Focus group discussions involve bringing together a small group of individuals to discuss a specific topic or issue related to the program. Focus group discussions can be used to gather qualitative data on program implementation, participant experiences, and program outcomes. They can also provide insights into the diversity of perspectives within a community or stakeholder group .
Photovoice is a qualitative method that involves using photography as a tool for community empowerment and self-expression. Participants are given cameras and asked to take photos that represent their experiences or perspectives on a program or issue. These photos can then be used to facilitate group discussions and generate qualitative data on program outcomes and impacts.
Case studies involve gathering detailed qualitative data through interviews, document analysis, and observation, and can provide a more in-depth understanding of a specific program component. They can be used to explore the experiences and perspectives of program participants or stakeholders and can provide insights into program outcomes and impacts.
Qualitative methodologies in M&E are useful for identifying complex and context-dependent factors that contribute to program outcomes, and for exploring stakeholder perspectives and experiences. Qualitative methodologies can provide valuable insights into the ways in which programs can be improved and can complement quantitative methodologies in providing a comprehensive understanding of program impact and effectiveness
Quantitative methodologies are commonly used in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) to measure program outcomes and impact in a systematic and objective manner. Quantitative methodologies involve collecting numerical data that can be analyzed statistically to provide insights into program effectiveness, efficiency, and impact. Here are some common quantitative methodologies used in M&E:
Surveys involve collecting data from a large number of individuals using standardized questionnaires or surveys. Surveys can provide quantitative data on people’s attitudes, opinions, behaviors, and experiences, and can help to measure program outcomes and impact.
Baseline and endline surveys are quantitative surveys conducted at the beginning and end of a program to measure changes in knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, or other outcomes. These surveys can provide a snapshot of program impact and allow for comparisons between pre- and post-program data.
RCTs are a rigorous quantitative evaluation method that involve randomly assigning participants to a treatment group (receiving the program) and a control group (not receiving the program), and comparing outcomes between the two groups. RCTs are often used to assess the impact of a program.
Cost-benefit analysis is a quantitative method used to assess the economic efficiency of a program or intervention. It involves comparing the costs of the program with the benefits or outcomes generated, and can help determine whether a program is cost-effective or not.
Performance indicator s are quantitative measures used to track progress toward program goals and objectives. These indicators can be used to assess program effectiveness, efficiency, and impact, and can provide regular feedback on program performance.
Statistical analysis involves using quantitative data and statistical method s to analyze data gathered from various evaluation methods, such as surveys or observations. Statistical analysis can provide a more rigorous assessment of program outcomes and impacts and help identify patterns or relationships between variables.
Experimental designs involve manipulating one or more variables and measuring the effects of the manipulation on the outcome of interest. Experimental designs are useful for establishing cause-and-effect relationships between variables, and can help to measure the effectiveness of program interventions.
Quantitative methodologies in M&E are useful for providing objective and measurable data on program outcomes and impact, and for identifying patterns and trends in program performance. Quantitative methodologies can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness, efficiency, and impact of programs, and can complement qualitative methodologies in providing a comprehensive understanding of program performance.
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) methods encompass the tools, techniques, and processes used to assess the performance of projects, programs, or policies.
These methods are essential in determining whether the objectives are being met, understanding the impact of interventions, and guiding decision-making for future improvements. M&E methods fall into two broad categories: qualitative and quantitative, often used in combination for a comprehensive evaluation.
Choosing the right evaluation methodology is essential for conducting an effective and meaningful evaluation. Here are some factors and criteria to consider when selecting an appropriate evaluation methodology:
Overall, choosing the right evaluation methodology depends on a variety of factors and criteria, including the evaluation goals and objectives, the type of data required, the resources available, the accessibility of the subject being evaluated, and ethical considerations. Selecting an appropriate methodology can ensure that the evaluation is effective, meaningful, and provides valuable insights into program performance and impact.
It’s worth noting that many evaluation methodologies use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to provide a more comprehensive understanding of program outcomes and impacts. Both qualitative and quantitative methodologies are essential in providing insights into program performance and effectiveness.
Qualitative methodologies focus on gathering data on the experiences, perspectives, and attitudes of individuals or communities involved in a program, providing a deeper understanding of the social and cultural factors that influence program outcomes. In contrast, quantitative methodologies focus on collecting numerical data on program performance and impact, providing more rigorous evidence of program effectiveness and efficiency.
Each methodology has its strengths and limitations, and a combination of both qualitative and quantitative approaches is often the most effective in providing a comprehensive understanding of program outcomes and impact. When designing an M&E plan, it is crucial to consider the program’s objectives, context, and stakeholders to select the most appropriate methodologies.
Overall, effective M&E practices require a systematic and continuous approach to data collection, analysis, and reporting. With the right combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies, M&E can provide valuable insights into program performance, progress, and impact, enabling informed decision-making and resource allocation, ultimately leading to more successful and impactful programs.
Thanks for your help its of high value, much appreciated
Very informative. Thank you
I am grateful for this article, which offers valuable insights and serves as an excellent educational resource. My thanks go to the author.
Your email address will not be published.
Only 2% of resumes land interviews.
Subject matter expert (media literacy).
Senior associate, human resources.
College of education: open-rank, evaluation/social research methods — educational psychology.
Energy/environment senior advisor, climate finance specialist, call for consultancy: evaluation of dfpa projects in kenya, uganda and ethiopia.
Budget and billing consultant, manager ii, budget and billing, usaid/lac office of regional sustainable development – program analyst, services you might be interested in, useful guides ....
How to Create a Strong Resume
Monitoring And Evaluation Specialist Resume
Resume Length for the International Development Sector
Types of Evaluation
Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning (MEAL)
Sign Up & To Get My Free Referral Toolkit Now:
855-725-7614
As we monitor and evaluate projects, we use many different kinds of qualitative methods, and each of these methods gives us different kinds of data. Depending on our evaluation statement of work or performance monitoring plan, we use different methods on particular occasions to elicit certain kinds of data.
As we craft our qualitative or mixed method evaluation designs, we should consider what qualitative methods we would use, and what kind of data those methods would give us. Evaluators have a large toolkit of qualitative methods, and we use each of these methods under different circumstances to gather different kinds of data. As Nightengale and Rossman (2010) explain, we need to decide what our unit of analysis will be; the number of sites that we will use; how we will choose those sites; what data we need; and what method will give us that data. We also need to consider Bamberger, Rugh, and Mabry's (2012) constraints of time, budget, data, and politics as we plan our qualitative research and evaluations. We should pay special attention to ethical considerations, as qualitative researchers tend to spend a lot of time with informants, gathering sensitive data in the process.
Let’s consider the use of several qualitative methods through the project cycle, from planning, to implementation, and project conclusion. We should consider what qualitative methods we would use, and what kind of data those methods would give us.
Planning As we are planning our project, if we are lucky, a donor will give us money to carry out a needs assessment. A quantitative needs assessment, perhaps even using already existing data, might tell us literacy rates or hospitalization rates, for example. This kind of data can be important for our project, depending on its scope, objectives, and activities.
A qualitative needs assessment might give us more of a disaggregated perspective of literacy or health issues that takes into account emic perspectives. Observation might give us a picture of what is happening in the project setting. Participant observation might give us more of an emic understanding of what is happening, especially if we are allowed into the backstage where the observer effect is no longer as evident. At this stage, key informant interviews might give us some possible project parameters, and this might be of particular importance if there are gatekeepers in the community who could help or hinder a project and its activities. Participatory tools like seasonal calendars might help us to understand the emic needs of the community, and the different local events or micropolitics issues that might impact project implementation and beneficiary access.
Understanding the needs of the community is an important process, and with emic data we can construct projects and activities and set indicators that are culturally appropriate.
Another aspect here is baseline data collection . We sometimes collect this as we are planning our project, and we sometimes collect it just before we start our activities. Collecting baseline data may be important if we want to be able to show outcomes or conduct an impact assessment after the conclusion of our project. If we want to show the impact of our project, or the changes in people’s attitudes, behaviors, or competencies, then we may need a baseline to compare to. Depending on our project, we might use a census table or a structured interview schedule to collect baseline data during the planning phase of a project.
Implementation We incorporate qualitative data into our monitoring efforts and formative evaluations so that we can improve project activities. We adapt and learn from our project’s implementation when we carry out formative evaluations.
Qualitative methods that monitor progress are particularly important during the implementation phase of a project. Using qualitative data to monitor projects gives us insight into a project’s activities as they are being implemented. This can be more helpful to us than quantitative data, such as “number of people trained.” Indeed, one of the most common uses of qualitative data is to help explain or add perspective to quantitative data. We can use qualitative data to tweak or change direction of our programming, especially if we are not hitting our intended objectives or making progress towards our indicators.
We use observation to see what is happening in our project, who is participating, and who is not participating. We use participant observation and key informant interviews to understand what is happening in our project as it is being implemented. Focus groups and participatory tools are also important for us so that we can get a wider perspective of project activities and outputs.
Outcomes and Impact Showing causation between the baseline and outcome data is something to consider in the design of an impact evaluation. Without that baseline data, we might not be in a position to show our project’s impact, so we need to think about collecting baseline data during the planning or at the start of the implementation phase if we want to show this later on.
As above, observation and participant observation allow us to observe and understand change that has or has not taken place in society as a result of our program. Key informant interviews and focus groups give us insight into the change, or lack thereof.
Concluding Thoughts While our evaluation designs need to be solid, we also need to have knowledge to implement the designs within other particular historical, cultural, and linguistic settings. Our designs are only going to take us so far, and that we as evaluators need training and expertise to use qualitative methods in culturally appropriate ways.
References: Michael Bamberger, Jim Rugh, and Linda Mabry, Real World Evaluation: Working Under Budget, Time, Data, and Political Constraints, Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2012. Demetra Smith Nightengale and Shelli Rossman, “Collecting Data in the Field,” in Joseph Wholey, Harry Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer, eds., Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, San Francisco: Wiley, 2010.
About the Author: Dr. Beverly Peters has more than twenty years of experience teaching, conducting qualitative research, and managing community development, microcredit, infrastructure, and democratization projects in several countries in Africa. As a consultant, Dr. Peters worked on EU and USAID funded infrastructure, education, and microcredit projects in South Africa and Mozambique. She also conceptualized and developed the proposal for Darfur Peace and Development Organization’s women’s crisis center, a center that provides physical and economic assistance to women survivors of violence in the IDP camps in Darfur. Dr. Peters has a Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh. Learn more about Dr. Peters .
To learn more about American University’s online MS in Measurement & Evaluation or Graduate Certificate in Project Monitoring & Evaluation, request more information or call us toll free at 855-725-7614.
(855) 725-7614
Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Health and safety monitoring and measuring
DOI link for Health and safety monitoring and measuring
Click here to navigate to parent product.
The main purpose of monitoring health and safety performance is to provide information on the progress and current status of the strategies, processes and activities employed to control health and safety risks. Effective measurement not only provides information on what the levels are but also why they are at this level, so that corrective action can be taken. Managers should check by asking key questions to ensure that arrangements for health and safety risk control are in place, comply with the law as a minimum, and operate effectively. Lagging indicators are the traditional safety metrics used to indicate progress toward compliance with safety rules. A leading indicator is a measure preceding or indicating a future event used to drive and measure activities carried out to prevent and control injury. Leading indicators are focused on future safety performance and continuous improvement. Performance should be measured at each management level from directors downwards.
Connect with us
Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Scientific Reports volume 14 , Article number: 20747 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
Metrics details
Great concern has long been raised about nitrate leaching in cropland due to its possible environmental side effects in ground water contamination. Here we employed two common techniques to measure nitrate leaching in tea plantation soils in subtropical China. Using drainage lysimeter as a reference method, the adaptability of estimating drainage and nitrate leaching by combining the water balance equation with the suction cup technique was investigated. Results showed that the final cumulative leachate volume for the calculated and measured method was 721.43 mm and 729.92 mm respectively during the study period. However, nitrate concentration exerted great influence in the estimation of nitrate leaching from the suction cup-based method. The cumulative nitrate leaching loss from the lysimeter and suction cup-based method was 47.45 kg ha −1 and 43.58 kg ha −1 under lysimeter nitrate concentrations ranging from 7 mg L −1 to 13 mg L −1 , 156.28 kg ha −1 and 79.95 kg ha −1 under lysimeter nitrate concentrations exceeding 13 mg L −1 . Therefore, the suction cup-based method could be an alternative way of monitoring nitrate leaching loss within a range of 7–13 mg L −1 of nitrate concentrations in leachate. Besides, lower results occurred in suction cup samplers due to lack of representative samples which mainly leached via preferential flow when in strong leaching events. Thus, it is advisable to increase sampling frequency under such special conditions. The results of this experiment can serve as a reference and guidance for the application of ceramic cups in monitoring nitrogen and other nutrient-ion leaching in tea plantation soils.
Introduction.
The intensive and extensive land-use activities associated with crops and animal production cause the most substantial anthropogenic source of nitrate, among which over-use of nitrogen fertilizer is one of the most contributing factors for nitrate pollution 1 , 2 . Compared with other crops, the tea plant (Camellia sinensis) requires an elevated nitrogen supply for the growth of tea shoots to enhance tea yield and quality 3 , 4 . The mean annual N application rate ranges from 281 to 745 kg ha −1 in the main tea production provinces in China. This means about 30% of the surveyed tea gardens applied excessive chemical fertilizers according to the current recommendation 5 . Meanwhile, higher N input levels increased concentrations of NO 3 − and NH 4 + in the 90–200 cm soil of the tea gardens, posing a high risk of N leaching loss in the tea gardens 6 . Thus, nitrate leaching from tea gardens should be of great concern for both scientists and producers.
In terms of monitoring methods for nitrate nitrogen leaching in agricultural soils, ceramic suction cup samplers and buried drainage lysimeters are the two most commonly employed techniques 7 . Ceramic suction cups are favored for their ease of installation and potential for repeated sampling at the same location 8 . They are deemed suitable for monitoring nitrate nitrogen leaching in non-structured soils 9 , 10 . However, ceramic suction cups are limited in their capacity to assess nitrate nitrogen concentrations only at specific soil depths and during particular sampling times 11 . This limitation makes it challenging to establish a comprehensive mass balance unless simultaneous quantification of soil water flux is undertaken. Additionally, characterized by low soil water retention and vulnerability to drought in coarse sandy soils, obtaining adequate sample volumes and capturing representative pore samples can be problematic 10 , 12 .
On the contrary, drainage lysimeters yield both the leachate volume and the nitrate nitrogen concentration, facilitating the calculation of nitrogen load passing below the defined soil layers. Other advantages embody larger sample volumes, enabling a representative sample of the soil pore network. Nonetheless, the installation and burial of drainage lysimeters traditionally introduce considerable soil disturbance, resulting in significant deviations from the original soil’s hydraulic properties and natural attributes, including the pathways for water and solute flow 13 . Strictly speaking, this approach constitutes a comprehensive method that integrates both temporal and spatial dimensions 14 . It thereby offers a more systematic and precise assessment of nitrogen leaching losses compared to other methodologies, which often capture relatively small-scale nitrogen leaching events and provide only a momentary glimpse into nitrogen leaching patterns 15 .
Due to the advantages and limitations inherent in both ceramic suction cup extraction and drainage lysimeter methodologies, these techniques are widely applied in empirical research. Several studies have also undertaken comparative analyses of their respective monitoring performance 10 , 12 , 13 . Nevertheless, extant research often relies on the ceramic suction cup approach to estimate nitrate nitrogen leaching quantities through multiplying the nitrate nitrogen concentration within the extracted solution by the measured volume obtained from the drainage lysimeter. This practice poses constraints on the application of the ceramic suction cup method, as the calculation of soil water flux becomes the key limiting factor when drainage lysimeter equipment is unavailable. Thus, it is imperative to explore alternative methods for calculating water flux and, on this basis, to conduct a comparative analysis of the two techniques. This approach is essential for promoting the practical utility and quantitative operability of the ceramic suction cup method.
Currently, there is limited research on localized nitrate nitrogen leaching in tea plantation soils, and a lack of comparative assessments of monitoring methods. In this study, we employed two methodologies, ceramic suction cup sampler and drainage lysimeters, to concurrently monitor nitrate nitrogen leaching in tea plantation soils. We put particular emphasis on the ceramic suction cup method, combined with a water balance equation, to evaluate the accuracy and efficacy of nitrate nitrogen leaching monitoring. Our objective is to provide insights and reference points for research efforts related to nitrogen leaching in tea plantation soils.
Site description.
The field experiment was conducted at Tea Research Institute of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (TRI-CAAS) Experimental Station in Zhejiang province of China (29.74°N, 120.82°E). The experimental site has a typical subtropical monsoon climate, with 12.6 °C in mean annual temperature and 1200 mm yr −1 in annual total precipitation. Before the experiment, tea plants (clone variety Baiye1 and Longjing43, hereafter referred to BY1 and LJ43) were planted in rows (1.5 m between rows and 0.33 m between plants) at a density of approximately 6000 plants ha −1 and allowed to grow for 4 years in the research site. The soil at the site was acidic red soil, developed from granite parent material with a texture that is clay. Before the experiment, the surface (0–20 cm) soil properties were pH 4.47, SOC 5.71 g kg −1 , TN 0.47 g kg −1 , available potassium (AK) 20.42 g kg −1 , and low available phosphorus (AP) 1.48 g kg −1 .
The experiment included different nitrogen (N) treatment levels, ranging from 150 kg N ha −1 to 450 kg N ha -1 , with three replicates arranged in a randomized complete block design. Urea was used as the nitrogen fertilizer, and nitrogen fertilization was divided into spring (30% of the total), summer (20% of the total), and fall (50% of the total) applications. In addition to nitrogen, each plot received a one-time application of 90 kg ha −1 phosphorus (as P 2 O 5 ), 120 kg ha −1 potassium (as K 2 O), and 1200 kg ha −1 of organic fertilizer as a basal application. The phosphorus fertilizer used was calcium superphosphate (13% P 2 O 5 ), the potassium fertilizer was potassium sulfate (50% K 2 O), and the organic fertilizer was rapeseed cake (5% N). Fertilization was conducted during the fall season using manual trenching (10–15 cm depth). The required amount of fertilizer for each plot was evenly spread in the trench, followed by soil backfilling.
Lysimeter installation and water sample collection.
Drainage lysimeters were installed in July 2015 in such a way that they were collected for a representative transect of the production bed. This involved digging pits with 1.5 m length × 1 m width × 1 m height in the middle of the tea plant rows. In case of the side-seepage of soil solution, each lysimeter pit was surrounded by a piece of plastic leather before soil backfilling. Each lysimeter was paired with two 1.5-m pipes among which one was for air passage and another was fitted with a 1.0-cm butyl rubber suction tube to allow extraction of the leachate collected at the bottom of the lysimeter by a vacuum pump. leachate was regularly removed bi-weekly by applying a partial vacuum (25–30 kpa) using a 10-L vacuum bottle placed in the vacuum line for each lysimeter. Leachate volume was determined gravimetrically and subsamples were collected from each bottle for drainage and nitrate analysis. Please refer to our previous study reported by Zheng et al. 16 for detailed information on the installation of lysimeters and the collection of water samples.
The soil solution extraction using the negative pressure ceramic suction cup method involved burying ceramic suction cups at a specific soil depth and connecting them to PVC pipes. Before sampling, a vacuum pump was used to create a vacuum inside the ceramic suction cup through the PVC pipe. This vacuum pressure allowed soil solution to be drawn into the ceramic suction cup, from which soil solution samples can then be extracted. In this experiment, ceramic suction cups were installed at a depth of 100 cm in the middle of tea rows. Four ceramic suction cups were placed horizontally at distances of − 0 cm, − 25 cm, − 50 cm, and − 75 cm from the tea tree roots. Before rainfall events, the ceramic suction cups were subjected to a vacuum pressure of approximately − 80 kPa to collect soil solution generated during rainfall. This sampling way was conducted simultaneously with the lysimeter method throughout the experiment.
Meteorological data were automatically collected by a weather station located about 100 m from the research site, and soil moisture was monitored using soil moisture sensors as described in our previous study reported by Zheng et al. 16 . The average temperature and rainfall during the experiment are shown in Fig. 1 . It can be observed from the figure that the total rainfall for March to December 2019 and January to June 2020 was 1374.60 mm and 1095 mm, respectively. The average daily temperature fluctuated within the range of 4.97 °C to 29.18 °C, with the highest daily average temperatures occurring in July and August and the lowest temperatures often emerging in December or January. Rainfall was most abundant from June to September, while November and December experienced lower levels of rainfall.
Total monthly precipitation and mean daily temperature by month from March 2019 to June 2020 at the research site.
After filtering the collected soil solution and leachate samples, the nitrate nitrogen concentration, NO 3 − –N concentration, was determined using a UV dual-wavelength spectrophotometry method with wavelengths of 220 nm and 275 nm 17 , 18 .
For the calculation of nitrate nitrogen leaching amount (CL) from the leachate collector, it is calculated by multiplying the volume of the collected water sample by its nitrate nitrogen concentration, and the specific calculation method is as follows in Eq. ( 1 ).
where Ci is the measured NO 3 − –N concentration in the water sample, kg N L −1 , Vi is the volume of leachate collected per extraction. The numbers 1.5 and 1.0 represent the length and width of the lysimeter, m. 0.01 is the conversion factor.
For the ceramic cup method, we need to apply a water balance equation to calculate the water flux over a specific time period. After that, you can multiply it by the concentration of nitrate nitrogen in the extracting solution to obtain the nitrate nitrogen leaching amount. The specific calculation process is as follows in Eq. ( 2 ).
The cumulative nitrate nitrogen leaching amount (CLs) for the ceramic cup method can be calculated as follows:
where C ἰ and C ἰ+1 (kg N L −1 ) represent the average concentrations of nitrate nitrogen in the soil-extracting solution for two consecutive sampling times. n represents the total number of sampling events.
D represents the water flux over the time interval between the two sampling events, which can be calculated using the water balance equation as shown in Eq. ( 3 ).
where P is the precipitation (mm), I means the irrigation water quantity (mm), which is not relevant in this study and is not considered in the calculations. VR is the change in soil water storage (mm). D is the leachate flux (mm). ETc is the crop evapotranspiration (mm), calculated as ETc = kc* ET 0 , where ET 0 is the reference evapotranspiration for crops calculated from meteorological data according to FAO-56 Penman–Monteith equation 19 . The calculation of ET 0 can be simplified as follows in Eq. ( 4 ).
where ET 0 is the reference evapotranspiration (mm day −1 ), R n is the net radiation at the crop surface (MJ m −2 day −1 ), G is the soil heat flux density (MJ m −2 day −1 ), T is the mean daily air temperature at 2 m height (°C), u 2 is the wind speed at 2 m height (m s −1 ), e s is the saturation vapor pressure (kPa), e a is the actual vapor pressure (kPa), (es-ea) is the saturation vapor pressure deficit (kPa), ∆ is the slope vapor pressure curve (kPa °C −1 ), γ psychrometric constant (kPa °C −1 ), and 900 is the conversion factor.
Statistical data analysis was conducted using SPSS 22 software (SPSS Inc., New York, USA). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed, followed by Duncan's post hoc test (p < 0.05 indicates significant differences, while p < 0.01 indicates highly significant differences). All graphs were generated using Sigmaplot 12.5 software (Systat Software Inc., Milpitas, USA).
Comparison of drainage flux and leachate volume calculation.
During the experimental period from March 2019 to June 2020, 22 samples were taken both for BY1 and LJ43. The drainage flux for each sampling interval was calculated using the water balance equation. Based on the results from our previous study 16 , for BY1, Kc was set to 0.71 to calculate evapotranspiration. When the rainfall exceeded 78.02 mm, the drainage flux was fixed at the maximum value of 20.63 mm. For LJ43, Kc was set to 0.84 to calculate evapotranspiration, and when the rainfall reached or exceeded 90.98 mm, the drainage flux was fixed at the maximum value of 21.45 mm. For other rainfall levels, the drainage flux was calculated using the actual rainfall and the water balance equation. On this basis, the calculated drainage flux was compared and analyzed against the equivalent water depth calculated by converting the leachate volume extracted from the lysimeter (Lysimeter leachate). The equivalent water depth (mm) is calculated as the extracted water volume (L) divided by the lysimeter's area (1.5 m 2 in this study). The results are shown in Fig. 2 .
Correlation analysis of lysimeter leachate and calculated drainage ( a ) and comparison of cumulative leachate and cumulative calculated drainage ( b ) for the BY1 and LJ43 during the study period.
From Fig. 2 a, it can be observed that the volume data points for both methods are distributed close to the 1:1 line, indicating that the calculated drainage flux and the lysimeter leachate volume measurements are generally in good agreement. Furthermore, the total volume sums for both methods were calculated separately (Fig. 2 b). The results indicate that the cumulative calculated drainage flux for BY1 during the experimental period was 389.21 mm, slightly higher than the total lysimeter leachate volume measured at 367.77 mm. For LJ43, the total calculated drainage flux was 332.22 mm, slightly lower than the total lysimeter leachate volume of 362.15 mm. Finally, when combining all results for BY1 and LJ43, the total calculated drainage flux and the total lysimeter leachate volume were 721.43 mm and 729.92 mm, respectively, with the former only 1.16% lower than the latter. Therefore, the application of the water balance equation for soil drainage flux calculation demonstrated high accuracy and feasibility.
A relationship was created with the nitrate nitrogen concentration of the lysimeter leachate during the experimental period as the x-axis and the nitrate nitrogen concentration of the soil solution extracted using the ceramic cup method as the y-axis. Additionally, a logarithmic transformation was applied to further analyze the impact of the two extraction methods on nitrate nitrogen concentration. The results are shown in Fig. 3 . It can be observed in Fig. 3 a that when the nitrate nitrogen concentration in the lysimeter leachate is less than 7 mg L −1 , all nitrate nitrogen concentrations in the soil solution extracted from the ceramic cup method are higher than those in the lysimeter leachate. Subsequently, as the nitrate nitrogen concentration in the lysimeter leachate increases from 7 mg L −1 to 13 mg L −1 , approximately half of the soil solution extracted from the ceramic cup method has a higher nitrate nitrogen concentration than the lysimeter leachate, while the other half has a lower nitrate nitrogen concentration. Then, when the nitrate nitrogen concentration in the lysimeter leachate exceeds 13 mg L −1 , all soil solution extracted using the ceramic cup method has a lower nitrate nitrogen concentration than the lysimeter leachate.
Correlation between ( a ) nitrate concentration from lysimeter and suction cup and ( b ) nitrate concentration from lysimeter and logarithmic conversion value of the ratio of nitrate concentration from lysimeter to suction cup nitrate concentration.
Further analysis was conducted by taking the ratio of the nitrate nitrogen concentrations in the lysimeter leachate and the soil solution extracted using the ceramic cup method as a real number, with a base of 2 for logarithmic transformation. The trend of this transformed value with respect to the nitrate nitrogen concentration in the lysimeter leachate is shown in Fig. 3 b. It is evident that as the nitrate nitrogen concentration in the lysimeter leachate increases, the logarithmic transformation value increases from its minimum value of − 3.51 to 1.93. The transformation value exhibits distinct trends and characteristics based on the grouping of nitrate nitrogen concentrations in the lysimeter leachate. When the lysimeter leachate concentration is less than 7 mg L −1 , the transformation value is consistently less than 0. When the lysimeter leachate concentration exceeds 13 mg L −1 , the transformation value is consistently greater than 0. However, when the lysimeter leachate concentration falls between 7 mg L −1 and 13 mg L −1 , both positive and negative transformation values coexist.
Similarly, a relationship was created with the nitrate nitrogen concentration of the lysimeter leachate (Lysimeter method) as the x-axis and the nitrate nitrogen concentration obtained using the ceramic cup method combined with the water balance equation (Ceramic cup method) as the y-axis. Additionally, a logarithmic transformation was applied to further analyze the impact of the two methods on nitrate nitrogen leaching. The results are shown in Fig. 4 . From Fig. 4 a, it can be observed that when the nitrate nitrogen concentration in the lysimeter leachate is less than 7 mg L −1 , almost all nitrate nitrogen leaching calculated using the ceramic cup method is higher than the nitrate nitrogen concentration in the lysimeter leachate. When the lysimeter leachate concentration falls between 7 mg L −1 and 13 mg L −1 , more than half of the nitrate nitrogen leaching calculated using the ceramic cup method is lower than the lysimeter method, while the other half is higher. Then, when the lysimeter leachate concentration exceeds 13 mg L −1 , all nitrate nitrogen concentrations calculated using the ceramic cup method are lower than the lysimeter leachate.
Correlation between ( a ) nitrate leaching from lysimeter and suction cup and ( b ) nitrate leaching from lysimeter and logarithmic conversion value of the ratio of nitrate leaching from lysimeter to suction cup nitrate leaching.
Further analysis was conducted by taking the ratio of the nitrate nitrogen concentrations in the lysimeter leachate and those calculated using the ceramic cup method as a real number, with a base of 2 for logarithmic transformation. The trend of this transformed value with respect to the nitrate nitrogen concentration in the lysimeter leachate is shown in Fig. 4 b. It is evident that the transformation value follows a trend highly similar to the concentration transformation trend mentioned above. As the nitrate nitrogen concentration in the lysimeter leachate increases, the logarithmic transformation value increases from its minimum value of − 3.51 to 1. This transformation value exhibits distinct trends and characteristics based on the grouping of nitrate nitrogen concentrations in the lysimeter leachate. When the lysimeter leachate concentration is less than 7 mg L −1 , the transformation value is consistently less than 0. When the lysimeter leachate concentration exceeds 13 mg L −1 , the transformation value is consistently greater than 0. However, when the lysimeter leachate concentration falls between 7 mg L −1 and 13 mg L −1 , both positive and negative transformation values coexist.
In addition, statistical analysis was performed on the total nitrate nitrogen leaching for each concentration group. The results indicate that when the lysimeter leachate concentration was less than 7 mg L −1 , the total nitrate nitrogen leaching obtained by the lysimeter method and the ceramic cup method is 22.24 kg ha −1 and 44.05 kg ha −1 , respectively. When the lysimeter leachate concentration fell between 7 mg L −1 and 13 mg L −1 , the total nitrate nitrogen leaching calculated by the lysimeter method and the ceramic cup method was 47.45 kg ha −1 and 43.58 kg ha −1 , respectively. When the lysimeter leachate concentration exceeded 13 mg L −1 , the total nitrate nitrogen leaching obtained by the lysimeter method and the ceramic cup method was 156.28 kg ha −1 and 79.95 kg ha −1 , respectively. In summary, there were differences in quantified nitrate nitrogen leaching losses between the two methods. If the lysimeter method was used as the standard, the ceramic cup method exhibited higher monitoring accuracy when the nitrate nitrogen concentration in the lysimeter leachate fell within the range of 7–13 mg L −1 .
The use of ceramic cup methods to monitor nitrate nitrogen leaching in farmland requires estimation of soil water flux through modeling. This inevitably introduces uncertainties in accurately quantifying nitrate nitrogen 20 . In this study, the application of a water balance model for quantitatively calculating soil drainage volume seemed to yield slightly lower water flux results compared to the corresponding measurements obtained through the lysimeter method, especially when rainfall was low (Fig. 2 a). One possible reason for this discrepancy could be that the water balance equation typically accounts for only the saturated flow above field capacity, neglecting unsaturated flow. However, it is reported that unsaturated flow, which occurs at lower soil moisture levels, is more common in practice, especially when rainfall is low and soil moisture levels remain relatively low 21 . Therefore, it is speculated that unsaturated flow is the primary reason for the water balance model calculating lower water flux than the lysimeter measurements under these conditions.
On the other hand, for conditions with higher rainfall intensity, when applying the water balance equation to estimate water flux, it should strictly include runoff as part of the water output, with the most accurate method being the construction of runoff tanks for precise measurement. However, this study lacked the necessary means to estimate runoff, which likely led to significant deviations in the final water flux calculations. Nevertheless, previous study reported that runoff typically occurs during heavy rainfall events and increases with higher rainfall amounts 22 , 23 , 24 and when a certain critical rainfall intensity is reached, water will be lost as runoff because the soil cannot absorb and retain it, and an eventual maximum leachate flux will occur 25 . Based on our previous study, critical rainfall amounts and maximum water leachate fluxes were determined for the tea varieties of Longjing 43 and BaiYe 1, thus mitigating the significant calculation bias arising from the absence of runoff monitoring.
The lysimeter method, being considered a relatively accurate technique for monitoring and quantifying soil nitrate nitrogen leaching, is often regarded as a true reflection of nitrate nitrogen leaching in soil 26 . This study indicated that when the nitrate nitrogen concentration in lysimeter leachate fell below 13 mg L -1 (especially within the range of 7–13 mg L −1 ), the ceramic cup method demonstrated relatively accurate monitoring results. However, when the leachate nitrate concentration exceeded 13 mg L −1 , A much lower result was obtained from the ceramic cup method compared to the lysimeter method. The reason for this may rely on the soil structure. From the perspective of soil texture, this experiment was conducted in a relatively heavy clay tea plantation, where the clay content within the top meter of soil ranged from 62.53 to 69.99% 16 . Under such soil conditions, nitrate nitrogen is likely to be transported downward through preferential flow. Preferential flow is characterized by the rapid movement of most soil water and solutes through the large and intermediate pores of the soil, bypassing the surface soil and moving downward 27 . Previous studies have found that the occurrence of preferential flow was much higher in clay soils than in sandy or loamy soils 28 , 29 , 30 . This often resulted in higher concentrations of nitrate nitrogen in leachate water 31 .
Ceramic cups, on the other side, have been reported to be unsuitable for use in clayey soils because the presence of preferential flow makes it difficult for ceramic cups to effectively collect water flowing through large pores, especially during heavy rainfall events 32 . Additionally, Barbee and Brown (1986) compared the performance of ceramic cups and lysimeters in monitoring chloride ions in soils with three different textures. The results showed that lysimeters generally provided higher and more stable monitoring results in loam and sandy loam soils, while ceramic cups were almost ineffective in clayey soils due to the rapid leaching and movement of water through large pores. Therefore, to some extent, ceramic cups were considered to be a flawed soil solution extraction technique for clayey soils. These factors need to be considered in soil nitrate nitrogen leaching studies, especially in soil types like clay, where choosing an appropriate solution extraction method is crucial for obtaining accurate data.
In comparison to direct measurements using lysimeters as a reference, the feasibility of the ceramic cup's negative pressure extraction estimation method was analyzed. The results demonstrated that the total calculated drainage flux and the total measured volume for lysimeter leachate were 721.43 mm and 729.92 mm, respectively, indicating that the application of the water balance equation for estimating soil drainage flux is accurate and feasible. Furthermore, through a comparative analysis of nitrate nitrogen concentrations in water samples collected by lysimeters and ceramic cups, it was observed that the ceramic cup method exhibited a certain accuracy in estimating nitrogen leaching, especially when the nitrate nitrogen concentration in lysimeter leachate fell within the range of 7–13 mg L −1 . However, under conditions of intense leaching (nitrate nitrogen concentration in lysimeter leachate exceeding 13 mg L −1 ), there was a risk of underestimation due to the potential lack of representative samples. Therefore, it is advisable to increase sampling frequency under such special circumstances.
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Variety Baiye1
Variety Longjing43
Hallberg, G. R. Nitrate in groundwater in the United States. In Nitrogen Management and Groundwater Protection (ed. Follett, R. F.) 35–74 (Elsevier, 1989).
Chapter Google Scholar
Keeney, D. R. Sources of nitrate to ground water. CRC Crit. Rev. Environ. Contr. 16 , 257–304 (1986).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Han, W. Y., Ma, L. F., Shi, Y. Z., Ruan, J. Y. & Kemmitt, S. J. Nitrogen release dynamics and transformation of slow release fertiliser products and their effects on tea yield and quality. J. Sci. Food Agric. 88 , 839–846 (2008).
Han, W., Xu, J., Wei, K., Shi, Y. & Ma, L. Estimation of N 2 O emission from tea garden soils, their adjacent vegetable garden and forest soils in eastern China. Environ. Earth Sci. 70 , 2495–2500 (2013).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Ni, K. et al. Fertilization status and reduction potential in tea gardens of China. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 25 , 421–432 (2019).
Google Scholar
Yan, P. et al. Tea planting affects soil acidification and nitrogen and phosphorus distribution in soil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 254 , 20–25 (2018).
Wey, H., Hunkeler, D., Bischoff, W. A. & Bünemann, E. K. Field-scale monitoring of nitrate leaching in agriculture: Assessment of three methods. Environ. Monit. Assess. 194 , 1–20 (2022).
Article Google Scholar
Creasey, C. L. & Dreiss, S. J. Porous cup samplers: Cleaning procedures and potential sample bias from trace element contamination. Soil Sci. 145 , 93–101 (1988).
Webster, C. P., Shepherd, M. A., Goulding, K. W. T. & Lord, E. Comparisons of methods for measuring the leaching of mineral nitrogen from arable land. J. Soil Sci. 44 , 49–62 (1993).
Barbee, G. C. & Brown, K. W. Comparison between suction and free-drainage soil solution samplers. Soil Sci. 141 , 149–154 (1986).
Wolf, K. A., Pullens, J. W. & Børgesen, C. D. Optimized number of suction cups required to predict annual nitrate leaching under varying conditions in Denmark. J. Environ. Manag. 328 , 116964 (2023).
Lord, E. I. & Shepherd, M. A. Developments in the use of porous ceramic cups for measuring nitrate leaching. J. Soil Sci. 44 , 435–449 (1993).
Wang, Q. et al. Comparison of lysimeters and porous ceramic cups for measuring nitrate leaching in different soil types. New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 55 , 333–345 (2012).
Brown, S. et al. Assessing variability of soil water balance components measured at a new lysimeter facility dedicated to the study of soil ecosystem services. J. Hydrol. 603 , 127037 (2021).
Zotarelli, L., Scholberg, J. M., Dukes, M. D. & Muñoz-Carpena, R. Monitoring of nitrate leaching in sandy soils: Comparison of three methods. J. Environ. Qual. 36 , 953–962 (2007).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Zheng, S. et al. Estimation of evapotranspiration and crop coefficient of rain-fed tea plants under a subtropical climate. Agronomy 11 , 2332 (2021).
Norman, R. J., Edberg, J. C. & Stucki, J. W. Determination of nitrate in soil extracts by dual-wavelength ultraviolet spectrophotometry. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49 , 1182–1185 (1985).
Goldman, E. & Jacobs, R. Determination of Nitrates by Ultraviolet Absorption. Am. Water Works Assoc. 53 , 187–191 (1961).
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration-Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998; pp. 2–15 (1998).
Weihermüller, L. et al. In situ soil water extraction: A review. J. Environ. Qual. 36 , 1735–1748 (2007).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Hu, K., Li, B., Chen, D. & White, R. E. Estimation of water percolation and nitrogen leaching in farmland: Comparison of two models. Adv. Water Sci. 15 , 87–93 (2004).
CAS Google Scholar
Alizadehtazi, B., Gurian, P. L. & Montalto, F. A. Impact of successive rainfall events on the dynamic relationship between vegetation canopies, infiltration, and recharge in engineered urban green infrastructure systems. Ecohydrology 13 , e2185 (2020).
Liu, G. et al. Interactive effects of raindrop impact and groundwater seepage on soil erosion. J. Hydrol. 578 , 124066 (2019).
Wang, H. et al. Effects of rainfall intensity on groundwater recharge based on simulated rainfall experiments and a groundwater flow model. CATENA 127 , 80–91 (2015).
Wang, J., Chen, L. & Yu, Z. Modeling rainfall infiltration on hillslopes using Flux-concentration relation and time compression approximation. J. Hydrol. 557 , 243–253 (2018).
Article ADS Google Scholar
Sołtysiak, M. & Rakoczy, M. An overview of the experimental research use of lysimeters. Environ. Socio-Econ. Stud. 7 , 49–56 (2019).
Beven, K. & Germann, P. Macropores and water flow in soils. Water Resour. Res. 18 , 1311–1325 (1982).
Butters, G. L., Jury, W. A. & Ernst, F. F. Field scale transport of bromide in an unsaturated soil: 1. Experimental methodology and results. Water Resour. Res. 25 , 1575–1581 (1989).
Roth, K., Jury, W. A., Flühler, H. & Attinger, W. Transport of chloride through an unsaturated field soil. Water Resour. Res. 27 , 2533–2541 (1991).
Ellsworth, T. R., Jury, W. A., Ernst, F. F. & Shouse, P. J. A three-dimensional field study of solute transport through unsaturated, layered, porous media: 1. Methodology, mass recovery, and mean transport. Water Resour. Res. 27 , 951–965 (1991).
Bronswijk, J. J. B., Hamminga, W. & Oostindie, K. Rapid nutrient leaching to groundwater and surface water in clay soil areas. Eur. J. Agron. 4 , 431–439 (1995).
Grossmann, J., Bredemeier, M. & Udluft, P. Sorption of trace elements by suction cups of aluminum-oxide, ceramic, and plastics. Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenkd. 153 , 359–364 (1990).
Download references
This work was financially supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFF0606802) and the Earmarked Fund for China Agriculture Research System (CARS-19).
Authors and affiliations.
Key Laboratory of Crop Breeding in South Zhejiang, Wenzhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Wenzhou, 325006, China
Shenghong Zheng, Hongling Chai & Huajing Kang
Key Laboratory of Tea Biology and Resource Utilization of Tea (Ministry of Agriculture), Tea Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Agriculture Sciences, Hangzhou, 310008, China
Shenghong Zheng, Kang Ni & Jianyun Ruan
Lishui Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Lishui, 323000, China
Qiuyan Ning
College of Ecology, Lishui University, Lishui, 323000, China
Xihu National Agricultural Experimental Station for Soil Quality, Hangzhou, 310008, China
Jianyun Ruan
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Conceptualization: SZ and JR; writing-original draft preparation: SZ;Writing-review and editing: KN, HC and JR; formal analysis: QN and CC; resources: HK; funding acquisition: JR. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Correspondence to Huajing Kang or Jianyun Ruan .
Competing interests.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher's note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Zheng, S., Ni, K., Chai, H. et al. Comparative research on monitoring methods for nitrate nitrogen leaching in tea plantation soils. Sci Rep 14 , 20747 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-71081-3
Download citation
Received : 10 July 2024
Accepted : 23 August 2024
Published : 05 September 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-71081-3
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.
Discover the world's research
You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.
All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .
Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.
Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.
Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.
Original Submission Date Received: .
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.
Please let us know what you think of our products and services.
Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.
Implementing autonomous control in the digital-twins-based internet of robotic things for remote patient monitoring.
1.1. motivation, 1.2. contribution.
3. the proposed system, 3.1. locomotion, 3.2. perception, 3.3. cognition, 3.3.1. obstacle avoidance, 3.3.2. path calculation, 3.4. navigation, 3.5. implementation, 4. experimental setup and performance evaluation, 4.1. navigation accuracy, 4.2. monitoring data quality, 4.3. comparative analysis, 5. discussion, 6. conclusions and future work, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.
Click here to enlarge figure
S. No | Functions/Keywords | Description |
---|---|---|
1 | Forward() | Moves forward |
2 | Backward() | Moves backward |
3 | Right() | Turns right |
4 | Left() | Turns left |
5 | nLeft() | Turns left 90° |
6 | fLeft() | Turns left 45° |
7 | fRight() | Turns right 45° |
8 | nRight() | Turns right 90° |
9 | eTurn() | Turns right 180° |
10 | mForward | Moves forward 0.5 m |
11 | sForward() | Moves forward 0.7 m |
12 | oForward() | Moves forward 1 m |
13 | eForward() | Moves forward 0.8 m |
14 | mReverse() | Moves backward 0.5 |
15 | Stop() | Comes to halt |
16 | Wait() | Waits for 10 s |
17 | TP | Target position 1 (19 m) |
18 | TP | Target position 2 (15.62) |
19 | TP | Target position 3 (12.24) |
20 | TP | Target position 4 (8.86) |
21 | Dist | Distance |
22 | oLeft | Left obstacle distance less than 0.4 cm |
23 | oRight | Right obstacle distance less than 0.4 cm |
24 | oFront | Front obstacle distance less than 0.4 cm |
25 | U | Upkey |
26 | D | Down key |
27 | R | Right key |
28 | L | Left key |
29 | aMode | Autonomous mode |
30 | mMode | Manual mode |
31 | UC | User command |
32 | oAvoid | Obstacle avoidance |
33 | SP | Starting point |
Tasks | Target Positions | Obstacles | D (m) | MD (m) | Error | Accuracy |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Task 1 | TP | ✕ | 38 | 37.21 | 2.08% | 97.92% |
Task 2 | TP | ✕ | 31.24 | 30.69 | 1.76% | 98.24% |
Task 3 | TP | ✕ | 24.48 | 24.08 | 1.63% | 98.37% |
Task 4 | TP | ✕ | 17.72 | 17.45 | 1.52% | 98.48% |
Tasks | Target Positions | Obstacles | Obstacles Status | Obstacles Positions | D (m) | MD (m) | Error | Accuracy |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Task 5 | TP | 1 | Static | TP (12.24 m) Front | 38 | 37.05 | 2.50% | 97.50% |
Task 6 | TP | 2 | Static | TP Front, Left | 38 | 37.05 | 2.50% | 97.50% |
Task 7 | TP | 2 | Static | TP Front, Right | 38 | 37.04 | 2.53% | 97.47% |
Task 8 | TP | 3 | Static | TP Front, Right, Left | 38 | 37 | 2.64% | 97.37% |
Task 9 | TP | 1 | Moving | TP Front | 38 | 37.04 | 2.53% | 97.47% |
Tasks | ME (cm) | SD |
---|---|---|
Task 1 | 79 | 13.93 |
Task 2 | 55 | 7.31 |
Task 3 | 40 | 7.71 |
Task 4 | 27 | 8.18 |
Tasks | ME (cm) | SD |
---|---|---|
Task 5 | 95 | 14.18 |
Task 6 | 95.5 | 14.2 |
Task 7 | 95.9 | 14.19 |
Task 8 | 100.3 | 16.77 |
Task 9 | 95.9 | 14.14 |
F | df | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|
Errors | 53.19 | 3 | 0.012 |
F | df | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|
Errors | 0.22 | 4 | 0.985 |
Tasks | Sensors | Accuracy | Completeness | Timeliness |
---|---|---|---|---|
Task 1 | Heartbeat | 0.977 | 0.984 | 0.967 |
Oxygen | 0.986 | 0.981 | 0.967 | |
Temperature | 0.981 | 0.981 | 0.967 | |
Task 4 | Heartbeat | 0.978 | 0.985 | 0.912 |
Oxygen | 0.987 | 0.986 | 0.912 | |
Temperature | 0.984 | 0.982 | 0.912 |
Systems | Technologies | Connectivity | Interface | Mode | Services | Evaluation Protocol | Navigation Accuracy | Comparative Analysis |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[ ] | Robotics | Wi-Fi, Bluetooth | Desktop-based GUI | Manual | RPM | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | Robotics | Bluetooth, Wi-Fi | Web-based | Autonomous | RPM, Detecting patients lying on floor | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | Robotics | Wi-Fi | Web-based | Autonomous | Detecting infected patients, Surface disinfection | ✓ | 85.5% | ✕ |
[ ] | IoRT | Wi-Fi, IEEE 802.22, Ethernet | Telegram bot interface | Autonomous | Elderly people monitoring | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | Robotics, IoT | Wi-Fi | Mobile Application | Autonomous | RPM | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | Robotics | ZigBee | GUI | Autonomous | RPM, Gait cycle assistance | ✓ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | Robotics | Bluetooth, Internet | Android Application | Autonomous, Manual | RPM, Medicine delivery, Waste collection | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
Proposed System | DTs-based IoRT | Bluetooth, NRF24L01+ | Desktop-based VR | Autonomous, Manual | RPM | ✓ | 97.81% | ✓ |
Systems | Accuracy | Completeness | Timeliness | Comparative Analysis |
---|---|---|---|---|
[ ] | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | 0.970 | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
Proposed System | 0.982 | 0.983 | 0.940 | ✓ |
Papers | Systems | Technologies | Description | Applications | Autonomous Operation | External Sensors Connectivity | Comparative Analysis |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[ ] | VR system | VR | Controlling mobile robot | Task inspection | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | Robotic hand exoskeleton | VR, DT | Observing virtual objects | Rehabilitation | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | WareVR | VR, DT | Monitoring autonomous robot | Transporting stock in a warehouse | ✓ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | Robotic arm | VR, DT | Teleoperation | Conducting laboratory tests | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | DTs-based robotic system | VR, DT | Controlling a FANUC robot | Industrial processes | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | DTs-based robotic system | VR, DT | Controlling Industrial manufacturing robots | Industrial processes | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
[ ] | Robotic arm | VR, DT | To perform remote surgery | Medical purpose | ✕ | ✕ | ✕ |
Proposed System | DTs-based IoRT | DTs, IoRT, VR | Control and monitor autonomous robot | RPM | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
Khan, S.; Ullah, S.; Ullah, K.; Almutairi, S.; Aftan, S. Implementing Autonomous Control in the Digital-Twins-Based Internet of Robotic Things for Remote Patient Monitoring. Sensors 2024 , 24 , 5840. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24175840
Khan S, Ullah S, Ullah K, Almutairi S, Aftan S. Implementing Autonomous Control in the Digital-Twins-Based Internet of Robotic Things for Remote Patient Monitoring. Sensors . 2024; 24(17):5840. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24175840
Khan, Sangeen, Sehat Ullah, Khalil Ullah, Sulaiman Almutairi, and Sulaiman Aftan. 2024. "Implementing Autonomous Control in the Digital-Twins-Based Internet of Robotic Things for Remote Patient Monitoring" Sensors 24, no. 17: 5840. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24175840
Further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.
Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals
COMMENTS
How to Write a Monitoring and Evaluation Report
(PDF) Principles and Practice of Monitoring and Evaluation
Submit Paper. American Journal of Evaluation. Impact Factor: 1.1 / 5-Year Impact Factor: 1.7 . Journal Homepage. ... Monitoring and Evaluation Training: A Systematic Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 464 pp. $69 (paperback), ISBN 9781452288918. ... Sage Research Methods Supercharging research opens in new tab;
Darlene Russ-Eft, PhD, is professor and Discipline Liaison of Adult Education and Higher Education Leadership in the College of Education at Oregon State University.Her research, books, and articles focus on program evaluation, workplace learning and development, and competency research. She was president of the Academy of Human Resource Development; a former director of the International ...
monitoring and evaluation for organizational learning, decision-making and accountability. The setting up a performance monitoring system for youth employment programmes, therefore, requires: clarifying programme objectives; identifying performance indicators; setting the baseline and targets, monitoring results, and reporting.
The aim of this survey is to observe not only the functionalities of current DQ tools in terms of data profiling and measurement, but also in terms of true DQ monitoring. Pushkarev et al. (2010) and a follow-up study (Pulla et al., 2016) point out that none of the tools observed had any monitoring functionality.
️Designing a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan: Steps and Strategies. Designing a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) plan involves several steps and strategies to ensure that the plan is effective in measuring program performance, identifying areas for improvement, and making evidence-based decisions. Here are some of the key steps and strategies: ...
Monitoring and Evaluation: Tools, Methods and Approaches
MEASURING AND MONITORING SDGs
As Fig. 4.3 shows, evaluators often use monitoring reports to inform their analysis. These reports are prepared by two sources: external consultants or the program/project actors. If an independent external monitor is hired, then the monitor will also inform their work with the ongoing monitoring reports and any information related to other monitoring-related activities completed by the ...
Basic Measurement and Monitoring Techniques. March 2021. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-33-4665-9_14. In book: Fiber Optic Communications (pp.577-622) Authors: Gerd Keiser. To read the full-text of this ...
Background. The measurement and monitoring of safety continues to be a priority for all healthcare systems. While the extent of serious harm from healthcare, and in particular the mortality from unsafe care, is much debated, there is little doubt that care is often unreliable and sometimes harmful.1-3 To make healthcare safer, organisations need to continually measure harm and reliability to ...
Measuring best practices for workplace safety, health and ...
evaluation methods; it also explores the importance of examining "process" in addition to "impact", This paper—a product of the Poverty and Inequality Team, Development Research Group—is part of a larger effort in the department to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods for monitoring and evaluation. Policy Research Working
Understanding Evaluation Methodologies: M&E Methods ...
Qualitative Methods in Monitoring and Evaluation
A mixed-methods research approach was used to (1)clearly identify and define elements of the safety management process that can be measured and monitored during the construction phase, (2)describe ...
Methodologies for data collection and analysis for monitoring ...
4.2. Measurement of research variables. Measurement of the research variables in this study utilized a recently developed safety performance measurement maturity model (Jääskeläinen, Tappura, & Pirhonen, 2019).The companies participating in this study were already involved in the testing of the developed measurement instrument and confirmed its applicability in their firm context.
3 Element 4: Health and safety monitoring and measuring 4.0 Learning outcomes and assessment criteria The learner should be able to: z Take part in incident investigations 4.2Explain why and how incidents should be investigated, recorded and reported z Help their employer to check their management system effectiveness - through monitoring, audits and reviews
ABSTRACT. The main purpose of monitoring health and safety performance is to provide information on the progress and current status of the strategies, processes and activities employed to control health and safety risks. Effective measurement not only provides information on what the levels are but also why they are at this level, so that ...
As an auxiliary monitoring approach, Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) methods, which are capable of measuring ground displacement at the millimeter level and detecting track settlement or subsidence across whole railway networks [3,4], for monitoring transportation infrastructures have gained popularity in recent time owing to ...
Here we employed two common techniques to measure nitrate leaching in tea plantation soils in subtropical China. ... Comparative research on monitoring methods for nitrate nitrogen leaching in tea ...
The research concludes that if significant improvements in the delivery of construction projects are to be attained, project management techniques need to be used adequately regardless of the type ...
The noninvasive measurement and sensing of vital bio signs, such as respiration and cardiopulmonary parameters, has become an essential part of the evaluation of a patient's physiological condition. The demand for new technologies that facilitate remote and noninvasive techniques for such measurements continues to grow. While previous research has made strides in the continuous monitoring of ...
In conventional patient monitoring methods, medical personnel keep manual records and continuously monitor patients' health. Hospitals have limited resources, thus manually taking patients' vital signs depends on many factors, including clinical workload, staff working hours, and patient diagnosis [].Furthermore, invasive devices are used for patient monitoring, which requires skin-to-skin ...
Preparing a brief research report on monitoring and measuring techniques 2 Prepare a brief research report that • critically reviews techniques for monitoring and measuring health and safety performance • evaluates the effectiveness of your chosen organisation's health and safety monitoring and measuring techniques • makes TWO recommendations for improving the monitoring and measuring ...
Decisions about what we eat play a central role in human appetite and energy balance. Measuring food reward and its underlying components of implicit motivation (wanting) and explicit sensory pleasure (liking) is therefore important in understanding which foods are preferred in a given context and at a given moment in time. Among the different methods used to measure food reward, the Leeds ...