Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
GUIDE TO AN OVERALL CRITIQUE OF A QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
REPORT
Aspect of the
Detailed
Report
Critiquing Questions
Critiquing
Guidelines
Title
Is the title a good one, succinctly suggesting key variables and the
Abstract
study population?
Does the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of
the report (problem, methods, results, conclusions)?
Introduction
Statement of
Box 4.3,
the problem
Does the problem statement build a cogent, persuasive argument for the
page 90
new study?
Does the problem have significance for nursing?
Is there a good match between the research problem and the paradigm
Hypotheses or
Box 4.3,
research
page 90
questions
Literature
Box 5.4,
review
sources?
page 122
5-1
problem?
Conceptual/the
Does the literature review provide a sound basis for the new study?
Are key concepts adequately defined conceptually?
Box 6.3,
oretical
page 145
framework
Method
Protection of
Box 7.3,
human rights
page 170
board?
Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to
Research
participants?
Was the most rigorous possible design used, given the study purpose?
Box 9.1,
design
page 230;
findings?
Box 10.1,
page 254
Did the design minimize biases and threats to the internal, construct,
and external validity of the study (e.g., was blinding used, was attrition
Population and
minimized)?
Is the population described? Is the sample described in sufficient detail? Box 12.1,
sample
Was the best possible sampling design used to enhance the samples
page 289
Box 13.1,
and
page 309;
measurement
Box 14.1,
5-2
page 347
choices, given the study purpose, variables being studied, and the study
population?
Does the report provide evidence that the data collection methods
Procedures
Box 9.1,
rigorously developed and implemented? Did most participants allocated to page 230;
the intervention group actually receive it? Is there evidence of
Box 10.1,
intervention fidelity?
page 254
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 Box 16.1,
hypothesis?
page 400;
Box 17.1,
page 429
Findings
Box 17.1,
page 429;
presented?
Box 28.1,
Are the findings adequately summarized, with good use of tables and
page 687
figures?
Are findings reported in a manner that facilitates a meta-analysis, and
with sufficient information needed for EBP?
Discussion
Interpretation
Are all major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of
Box 19.1,
of the findings
page 482
Does the report address the issue of the generalizability of the findings?
Do the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical
Box 19.1,
page 482
ns
Global Issues
complete?
Box 28.2,
Presentation
Researcher
practicing nurses?
Do the researchers clinical, substantive, or methodologic qualifications
credibility
5-4
page 698
interpretation?
Despite any limitations, do the study findings appear to be validdo
assessment
5-5
BOX 5.3
GUIDE TO AN OVERALL CRITIQUE OF A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
REPORT
Aspect of the
Detailed
Report
Critiquing Questions
Critiquing
Guidelines
Title
Is the title a good one, suggesting the key phenomenon and the
Abstract
Introduction
Statement of
Box 4.3,
the problem
page 90
Box 4.3,
questions
justified?
page 90
Box 5.4,
review
page 122
Does the literature review provide a sound basis for the new
Conceptual
study?
Are key concepts adequately defined conceptually?
5-6
Box 6.3,
underpinnings
page 145
Box 7.3,
participants
page 170
rights
Research
to participants?
Is the identified research tradition (if any) congruent with the
Box 20.1,
design and
page 510
research
tradition
participants?
Did the design unfold in the field, giving researchers
opportunities to capitalize on early understandings?
Was there an adequate number of contacts with study
Sample and
participants?
Was the group or population of interest adequately described?
Box 21.1,
setting
page 528
Box 22.1,
page 548
5-7
Did the researcher ask the right questions or make the right
observations, and were they recorded in an appropriate fashion?
Was a sufficient amount of data gathered? Were the data of
Procedures
Box 22.1,
page 548
Box 24.1,
of
page 598;
trustworthiness
Table 24.1,
page 587
and sufficient?
Did the researcher document research procedures and decision
processes sufficiently that findings are auditable and confirmable?
Is there evidence of researcher reflexivity?
Is there thick description of the context, participants, and
findings, and was it at a sufficient level to support transferability?
Results
Data analysis
5-8
Box 23.1,
page 559
Findings
Box 23.1,
page 559
integration
Box 23.1
page 559;
Box 6.3,
page 145
Interpretation
cultural context?
of the findings
Implications/
Presentation
5-9
Box 28.2,
page 698
Researcher
credibility
Summary
their interpretation?
Do the study findings appear to be trustworthydo you have
assessment
5-10
Box 5.4
Guidelines for Critiquing Literature Reviews
1. Is the review thoroughdoes it include all of the major studies on the topic? Does
it include recent research? Are studies from other related disciplines included, if
appropriate?
2. Does the review rely on appropriate materials (e.g., mainly on primary source
research articles)?
3. Is the review merely a summary of existing work, or does it critically appraise and
compare key studies? Does the review identify important gaps in the literature?
5. Does the review use appropriate language, suggesting the tentativeness of prior
findings? Is the review objective? Does the author paraphrase, or is there an over
reliance on quotes from original sources?
6. If the review is part of a research report for a new study, does the review support
the need for the study?
5-11
Figure 5.5
Citation:
Type of Study:
Location/setting:
Authors: __________________________________________________________
Title:
__________________________________________________________
Journal:
__________________________________________________________
Year:
______
Volume: ________ Issue: _____ Pages: ______
Quantitative
Qualitative
Mixed Method
______________________________________________________________
Key Concepts/
Variables:
Concepts: ____________________________________________________________
Intervention/Independent Variable: ________________________________________
Dependent Variable: ___________________________________________________
Controlled Variables: ______________________________________________
Framework/Theory: ____________________________________________________________________
Design Type:
Experimental
Quasiexperimental Nonexperimental
Specific Design: ______________________________________________________
Blinding? None
Single: ________________ Double________________
Intervention Description: ___________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Comparison group(s):___________________________________________________
Cross-sectional Longitudinal/Prospective No. of data collection points: ____
Qual. Tradition:
Sample:
Size: ___________
Sampling method:_______________________________
Sample characteristics:__________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Type: Self-report Observational
Biophysiologic
Other____
Description of measures:________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Data Quality: ___________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Bivariate: t-test ANOVA Chi-square Pearsons r Other:_______
Multivar: Multiple Regression Logistic Regression Other: _____________
Data Sources:
Statistical Tests:
Findings/
Effect Sizes/
Themes:
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Recommendations: _____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Strengths:
_______________________________________________________________
Weaknesses:
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
5-12
Figure 5.6
Methodologic Matrix for Recording Key Methodologic Features of Studies for a Literature
Review
Authors
Pub
Yr
Country
Dependent Variables
Independent
Variables
Study
Design
Sample
Size
U.S.A.
Crosssectional,
correlation
al
332
nurses,
national
sample
Twycross
2007
U.K.
Perception of childs
pain,
Use of analgesics,
Use of
nonpharmacologic
methods
Pain management
practices
Knowledge of pain
management
Vincent &
Denyes
2004
U.S.A.
Polkki et al.
2001
Finlan
d
Use of analgesics,
Perceived barriers to
optimal pain
management
Nurses use of
nonpharmacologic
methods
Hamers et
al.
1997
Nether
- lands
Crosssectional,
correlation
al
Crosssectional,
correlation
al
Crosssectional,
correlation
al
Crosssectional,
correlation
al
13
nurses, 1
surgical
ward
67 nurses
from 7
hospital
units
162
nurses
from 5
hospitals
695
nurses
Assessments of childs
pain, Confidence in
assessment, Use of
analgesics
5-13
Samplin Data
g
Collection
Method
Random Self-report
questionnair
e
Age of
Childre
n
810
Convenience
Observation
, self-report
016
Convenience
Observation
, self-report
questionnair
e
Self-report
questionnair
e
317
Video,
vignette,
self-reports
510
Convenience
Convenience
812
Margolius
et al.
1995
U.S.A.
Perceptions of childs
pain, Perceived
adequacy of pain
management
Nurses education,
age, years of nursing
experience
5-14
Crosssectional,
correlation
al
228
nurses, 1
pediatric
setting
Convenience
Self-report
questionnair
e
NA
Figure 5.7
Two Results Matrices for Recording Key Findings for a Literature Review
Independent Variable: ________________ (Code 1)
Authors
Pub
Year
DV.a
DV.b
DV.c
DV.d
Pub
Year
DV.a
DV.b
DV.c
5-15
DV.d
Figure 5.8
Evaluation Matrix for Recording Strengths and Weaknesses of Studies for a Literature Review
Authors
Year of
Publication
Major Strengths
Major Weaknesses
5-16
Quality
Score
Database
Keywords
Used
Subject
Heading
Used
Author
Search Name
5-17
Restrictions
to Search
Other
Information
on Strategy
Yield
http://www.kfinder.com
CINAHL
http://www.ebscohost.com/cinahl/
http://www.hscl.ufl.edu/help/CINAHL/tutorials.htm
http://www.thomsonisi.com/
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/
Ovid
http://www.ovid.com/site/index.jsp
ProQuest
http://www.proquest.com/
PubMed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed
PubMed tutorial
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/disted/pubmedtutorial/
http://www.mssm.edu/library/tutorials/pubmed.html
http://www.ebscohost.com/
5-18