You will select a quantitative and a qualitative nursing research article. Each study’s main components should be summarized. A critique also contains comments about the positive and negative aspects of the study and the report of the study. The critique should be written as concisely as possible, no longer than five pages, typewritten, double-spaced. The paper should address all parts of the report equally, with strengths and weaknesses outlined where appropriate. Where possible, include suggestions for improvement. A copy of the research discussed must be submitted with the assignment. At least one of the lead authors on each article must be a nurse. Use the research critique guide provided by your professor to complete this assignment.
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE GUIDE
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now
Use the following guide in writing the critique:
1. Statement of the Problem/Purpose
Is the problem/purpose clearly stated?
Is it easy to identify and locate?
Is it significant to nursing?
2. Review of Literature
Is it recent? Five years or newer?
Were primary sources of authorities or experts used?
Is it relevant to the stated problem?
Does it provide a solid basis for the study?
3. Conceptual/Theoretical Framework
Is there a theoretical or conceptual framework, rationale, and/or map, and (if so) is it appropriate? If not, is the absence of one justified?
Are key concepts adequately defined conceptually?
4. Hypothesis(es) or research question(s)
Are research questions and/or hypotheses explicitly stated? If not, is their absence justified?
Are they adequately stated with clear specification of key variables and the study population?
Are they placed in the contexts of a theoretical or conceptual framework?
5. Research Method(s)
Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants? Was the study subject to external review by an IRB/ethics review board?
Was study designed to minimize risk?
6. Research Design
Does the approach fit the purpose and hypothesis (es)?
Was the most rigorous possible design used, given the purpose of the research?
Was the number of data collection points appropriate?
Did the design minimize biases and threats to internal construct, and external validity of the study?
7. Population and Sample
Was the population properly identified and described? Was the sample described in sufficient detail?
Was the best possible sampling design used to enhance the sample’s representativeness? Were sample biases minimized?
Was the sample size adequate? Was a power analysis used to estimate sample size needs?
8. Data Collection and Measurement
Are the operational and conceptual definitions congruent?
Were key variables operationalized using the best possible method and with adequate justification?
Are instruments objective? Reliable? Valid?
Were data collected in a manner that minimized bias? Were the staff that collected data appropriately trained?
9. Data Analysis
Were appropriate statistical methods used, given the level of measurement of the variables, number of groups being compared?
Is a thorough descriptive analysis given?
10. Presentation of Findings/Implications
Are all hypotheses discussed with findings adequately summarized, with appropriate use of tables and figures?
Are findings reported in a manner that facilitates a meta-analysis and with sufficient information needed for evidence based practice?
Were the recommendations for clinical practice and further research reasonable and complete?
Are limitations presented and adequate?
QUALITIATIVE RESEARCH CRITIQUE GUIDE
1. Is the research tradition for the qualitative study identified? If none was identified, can one be inferred? If more than one was identified, is this justifiable or does it suggest “method slurring”?
2. Does the study purpose match the study design? Was the best possible design (or research tradition) used to address the study purpose? Is the research question congruent with a qualitative approach and with the specific research tradition?
3. Is the design appropriate, given the research question? Does the design lend itself to a through, in-depth, intensive examination of the phenomenon of interest?
4. Does the report describe an explicit theoretical or conceptual framework for the study? If not, does the absence of a framework detract from the significance of the research or its conceptual integration?
5. Given the nature of the data, was the data analysis approach appropriate for the research design?
6. Is the category scheme described? If so, does the scheme appear logical and complete? Does there seem to be unnecessary overlap or redundancy in the categories? Were manual methods used to index and organize the data, or was a computer program used?
7. Did the report adequately describe the process by which the actual analysis was preformed? Did the report indicate whose approach to data analysis was used (e.g., Glaserian or Straussian, in grounded theory studies)?
8. What major themes or processes emerged? If excerpts from the data are provided, do the themes appear to capture the meaning of the narratives?
9. What evidence did the report provide that the analysis is accurate and replicable? Were data displayed in a manner that allows you to verify the researcher’s conclusions?
10. Did the analysis yield a meaningful and insightful picture of the phenomenon under study? Did the report give you a clear picture of the social or emotional world of study participants?
11. Which specific techniques (if any) did the researcher use to enhance the trustworthiness and integrity of the inquiry? Where these strategies used judiciously and to good effect? Given the efforts to enhance data quality, what can you conclude about the study’s validity/integrity/rigor/trustworthiness? Does the report adequately address the transferability of the findings?
12. Did the report discuss any study limitations and their possible effects on the credibility of the results or on interpretations of the data? Were results interpreted in light of findings from other studies? Did the researchers discuss the study’s implications for clinical practice or future research?