Description/Paper Instructions
Assignment Criteria:
Select one of the following research articles for Assignment 2:
Underhill, M., Roper, K., Siefert, M., Boucher, J., & Berry, D. (2015). Evidence-based practice beliefs and implementation before and after an initiative to promote evidence-based nursing in an ambulatory oncology setting. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 12(2), 70-78.
Irwin, M., Bergman R., & Richards, R. (2013). The experience of implementing evidence-based practice change: A qualitative analysis. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 17(5), 544-549.
1. Select a research article;
2. Copy and paste the appropriate research critique grid found in Week 4 into a new Word document. (Attached below)
3. Complete each section of the research critique grid. The “Analysis” section of the research critique grid should be specific. Use
bullet points for this section and support each yes/no analysis with comments.
4. Critique the article and include the strengths and weaknesses.
5. The research critique grid should be added as an appendix to this paper.
6. The scholarly paper should be in narrative format 2-3 pages, excluding the title, reference and appendix pages.
7. Include an introductory paragraph, purpose statement, body (summary page) and a conclusion.
8. Include level 1 and 2 headings to organize the paper.
9. Write the paper in third person, not first person (meaning do not use ‘we’ or ‘I’) and in a scholarly manner. To clarify: I, we,
you, me, our may not be used. In addition, describing yourself as the researcher or the author should not be used.
10. Include the chosen article in the reference page.
11. APA format is required (attention to spelling/grammar, a title page, a reference page, and in-text citations).
|
Research Critique Framework Quantitative Research
Aspect of the Report |
Critiquing Questions |
Answer
Yes/No |
Analysis |
Title |
· Is the title a good one, succinctly suggesting key variables and the study population? |
|
|
Abstract |
· Did the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the report (problem, methods, results, conclusion)? |
|
|
Introduction
Statement of the Problem |
· Was the problem stated unambiguously, and was it easy to identify?
· Is the problem significant for nursing?
· Did the problem statement build a persuasive argument for the new study?
· Was there a good match between the research problem and the methods used – that is, was a quantitative approach appropriate? |
|
|
Hypotheses or Research Questions |
· Were research questions and/or hypotheses explicitly stated? If not, was their absence justified?
· Were questions and hypotheses appropriately word, with clear specification of key variables and the study population?
· Were the questions/hypotheses consistent with existing knowledge? |
|
|
Literature Review |
· Was the literature review up-to-date and based mainly on primary sources?
· Did the review provide a state-of-the-art synthesis of evidence on the problem?
· Did the literature review provide a strong basis for the new study? |
|
|
Conceptual/Theoretical Framework |
· Were key concepts adequately defined conceptually?
· Was a conceptual/theoretical framework articulated – and, if so, was it appropriate? If not, is the absence of a framework justified?
· Were the questions/hypotheses consistent with the framework? |
|
|
Method
Protection of Human Rights |
· Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants?
· Was the study externally reviewed by an IRB/ethics review board?
· Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to participants? |
|
|
Research Design |
· Was the most rigorous design used, given the study purpose?
· Were appropriate comparisons made to enhance interpretability of the findings?
· Was the number of data collection points appropriate?
· Did the design minimize biases and threats to the internal, construct, and external validity of the study (e.g., was blinding used, was attrition minimized)? |
|
|
Population and Sample |
· Was the population identified? Was the sample described in sufficient detail?
· Was the best possible sampling design used to enhance the sample’s representativeness? Were
sampling biases minimized?
· Was the sample size adequate? Was the sample size based on a power analysis?
|
|
|
Data Collection and Measurement |
· Were the operational and conceptual definitions congruent?
· Were key variables measured using an appropriate method (e.g. interviews, observations, and so on)?
· Were specific instruments adequately described and were they good choices, given the study population and the variables being studied?
· Did the report provide evidence that the data collection methods yielded data that were reliable, valid, and responsive? |
|
|
Procedures |
· If there was an intervention, was it adequately described, and was it rigorously developed and implemented? Did most participants allocated to the intervention group actually receive it? Was there evidence of intervention fidelity?
· Were data collected in a manner that minimized bias? Were the staff who collected data appropriately trained? |
|
|
Results
Data Analysis |
· Were analyses undertaken to address each research question or test each hypothesis?
· Were appropriate statistical methods used given the level of measurement of the variables, number of groups being compared, and assumptions of the tests?
· Was a powerful analytic method used? (e.g. did the analysis help to control for confounding variables)?
· Were Type I and Type II errors avoided or minimized?
· In intervention studies, was an intention-to-treat analysis performed?
· Were problems of missing values evaluated and adequately addressed? |
|
|
Findings |
· Was information about statistical significance presented? Was information about effect size and precision of estimates (confidence intervals) presented?
· Were the findings adequately summarized, with good use of tables and figures?
· Were findings reported in a manner that facilitates a meta-analysis, and with sufficient information needed for EBP? |
|
|
Discussion
Interpretation of the Findings |
· Were all major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior research and/or the study’s conceptual framework?
· Were causal inferences, if any, justified?
· Was the issue of clinical significance discussed?
· Were interpretations well-founded and consistent with the study’s limitations?
· Did the report address the issue of the generalizability of the findings? |
|
|
Implications/
Recommendations |
· Did the researchers discuss the implication of the study for clinical practice or further research – and were those implications reasonable and completed? |
|
|
General Issues
Presentation |
· Was the report well-written, organized, and sufficiently detailed for critical analysis?
· In intervention studies, was a CONSORT flowchart provided to show the flow of participants in the study?
· Was the report written in a manner that makes the findings accessible to practicing nurses? |
|
|
Researcher credibility |
· Do the researchers’ clinical, substantive, or methodologic qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretation? |
|
|
Summary Assessment |
· Despite any limitations, do the study findings appear to be valid – do you have confidence in the truth value of the results?
· Does the study contribute any meaningful evidence that can be used in nursing practice or that is useful to the nursing discipline? |
|
|
Note. Adapted from “Guide to an Overall Critique of a Quantitative Research Report,” by D. F. Polit and C. T. Beck, 2017, Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice (10th ed.), pp. 102-105.
Research Critique Framework Quantitative Research
|