It is a critical evaluation/appraisal of a research
report
 “A critical estimate of a piece of research
which has been carefully and systematically
studied by a critic who has used specific
criteria to appraise the favorable, less
favorable and other general features of the
research study”
Leininger
 Requires critical thinking, appraisal &
intellectual skill
 Involves a careful examination of all aspects
of a study to judge the merits, limitations,
meaning and significance & knowledge of the
topic
 To assess students` methodological and
analytical skills (identify limitations &
strengths)
 Seasoned researcher to help journal editions
 Written critique is a guide to researcher
 To advance nursing knowledge & profession
 Two principles to remember when critiquing a
research are
(a) be objective
(b) make your comments specific to the
work you are reviewing
 Critique should be an advisory and
constructive nature
 Read & Critique the entire study
 Be objective & Realistic
 Comment on strengths and weakness
 Give specific examples
 Use the positive terms whenever possible and
say the positive points first
 Avoid vague generalizations of praise and
fault findings
 Be sensitive in handling negative comments
 Evaluate substantive, ethical, methodologic,
interpretative presentational dimensions
 Suggest alternatives
 What type of study was conducted ?
 What was the setting ?
 Were the steps clearly identified ?
 Was there a logical flow ?
 Substantive & theoretical dimensions
 Methodologic dimensions
 Ethical dimensions
 Interpretative dimensions
 Presentation/stylistic dimensions
 Readers of a research report need to
determine whether a study was worthy in
terms of the significance of the problem, the
soundness of the conceptualization &
appropriateness of the conceptual
framework.
 Normally communicated in the report’s
introduction
 The heart of a research critique lies in the
analysis of the methodologic decisions
adopted.
 In a quantitative study, the four major
decision points to focus critical attention are
Decision 1, Design :What design will yield
the most unambiguous and meaningful
results about the relationship between the
independent and dependent variables?
 What extraneous variables are to be
controlled and how best can this be
accomplished?
DECISION 2, SAMPLE : who should
participate in the study?
DECISION 3, DATA COLLECTION :What
method should be used to collect the data?
DECISION 4, DATA ANALYSIS :What
statistical analysis will provide the most
appropriate tests of the research hypotheses?
 Need to consider whether the right of human
subjects were violated during the
investigation.
 If there is potential Ethical concerns, we need
to consider its impact both on the scientific
merit and on well being of the participants.
 Research reports conclude with a Discussion,
Conclusions or Implications section.
 Here researcher attempt to make sense of
the analysis, to consider whether the findings
support or fail to support hypotheses or
theory.
 Writing a research report should be clear,
grammatical, concise and well organized.
 Unnecessary jargon should be minimized.
 Quantitative research reports are written in a
more formal, impersonal fashion, using either
the third person or passive voice to connote
objectivity
 Qualitative studies are written in a more
literary style, using first or second person &
active voice to connote proximity & intimacy
with the data & phenomenon under study.
 Clear / concise
 Too big / too small
 Gives precise information
 Research questions empirically tested?
 Definitions of terms clearly described?
 Is the purpose of the study presented ?
 Is the significance (importance) of the
problem discussed ?
 Does the investigator provide a sense of what
he or she is doing and why ?
 Is the problem statement clear ?
 Does the investigator identify key research
questions and variables to be examined ?
 Does the study have the potential to help
solve a problem that is currently faced in
clinical practice ?
 Does the report tie the problem to various
related research?
 Is there overdependence on secondary
source?
 Recent literature included?
 Overdependence on anecdotes/ opinion
articles over empirical studies?
 Paraphrased adequately? Analyzed critically?
 Does literature review follow a logical
sequence leading to a critical review of
supporting and conflicting prior work ?
 Is the relationship of the study to previous
research clear ?
 Does the investigator describe gaps in the
literature and support the necessity of the
present study.
 Is a rationale stated for the theoretical/
conceptual framework ?
 Does the investigator clearly state the
theoretical basis for hypothesis formulation ?
 Does it link the problem to a theoretical /
conceptual framework in a natural way?
 Is the hypothesis stated precisely, logically
and in a form that permits it to be tested ?
 Does it express a predictable relationship?
 Do they flow logically?
 Do they include general population of
interest?
 Are the relevant variables and concepts
clearly and operationally defined ?
 Is the design appropriate for the research
questions or hypotheses ?
 Is experimental/ non experimental
approaches best?
 Appropriate procedures and methods of data
collection described sufficiently and clearly?
 Procedure for preventing contamination
between treatment and control group
described?
 If there was more than one data collector,
was the inter-rater reliability adequate ?
 Are the subjects and sampling methods
described ?Sample size justified?
 Is the sample of sufficient size for the study,
given the number of variables and design ?
 Is there adequate assurance that the rights of
human subjects were protected ?Response
rate reported?
 Are the subjects representative of the
sample?Are key characteristics described?
 Instruments clearly identified and described?
 Method of development of tools appropriate with
regard to structure?
 Are the instruments developed specifically for the
study? Are the processes for its development
described?
 Are appropriate instruments for data
collection used ?
 Are reliability and validity of the instruments
adequate ?
 If instrument new/ adapted, if sufficient
testing done?
 Evidence for validity and reliability
presented?
 Is analysis consistent with objectives of study?
 Type of analysis appropriate for type of data?
 Is information unnecessarily converted?
 Are the statistical tests used identified and
the values reported ?
 Are appropriate statistics used, according to
level of measurement, sample size, sampling
method, and hypotheses/ research
questions?
 Are the results for each hypothesis clearly
and objectively presented ?
 Are the figures and tables used efficiently to
highlight and streamline the presentation of
results?
 Are results described in light of the
theoretical framework and supporting
literature ?
 All important results discussed?
 Interpretation organized in meaningful
fashion?
 Does interpretation distinguish practical and
statistical significance?
 Is it appropriate?
 Are implications of findings discussed (i.e.,
for practice, education and research) ?
 Does it include nursing implication?
 Are recommendations for further research
stated ?
 Is the study of sufficient quality to meet the
criterion of sufficient merit ?
 Does the study meet the criterion of
replicability ?
 Is the study of relevance to practice ?
 Is the study feasible for nurses to implement ?
 Does the benefits of the study outweigh the
risks ?
 Are conclusions based on the results and
related to the hypothesis ?
 Are study limitations identified ?
 Are generalizations made within the scope of
the findings ?
 Title- of reasonable length
 Summary- abstract included
 Bibliography- style & citation
 pleasant to read
 Grammatically correct
 No complex sentences
 Research is the best possible means of
answering many questions, no single study
can provide conclusive evidence
 Evidence is accumulated through the conduct
and evaluation of several studies
 Reader who can do reflective and thorough
critiques of research of reports play a role
advancing nursing knowledge
 Burns N, Grove SK.The Practice of Nursing
Research conduct, critique & utilization. 5 edi.
W.B. Saunders Company: Philadelphia; 2005.
 Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing Research Principles
and Methods. 7 edi. LippincottWilliams &
Wilkins company: Philadelphia; 2004.
 Rose Marie Nieswiadomy. Foundations of
Nursing Research. 5 edi. Dorling Kindersley
Pvt. Ltd. Pearson Education: India; 2009.

Research Critique.pptx

  • 2.
    It is acritical evaluation/appraisal of a research report
  • 3.
     “A criticalestimate of a piece of research which has been carefully and systematically studied by a critic who has used specific criteria to appraise the favorable, less favorable and other general features of the research study” Leininger
  • 4.
     Requires criticalthinking, appraisal & intellectual skill  Involves a careful examination of all aspects of a study to judge the merits, limitations, meaning and significance & knowledge of the topic
  • 5.
     To assessstudents` methodological and analytical skills (identify limitations & strengths)  Seasoned researcher to help journal editions  Written critique is a guide to researcher  To advance nursing knowledge & profession
  • 6.
     Two principlesto remember when critiquing a research are (a) be objective (b) make your comments specific to the work you are reviewing  Critique should be an advisory and constructive nature
  • 7.
     Read &Critique the entire study  Be objective & Realistic  Comment on strengths and weakness  Give specific examples  Use the positive terms whenever possible and say the positive points first
  • 8.
     Avoid vaguegeneralizations of praise and fault findings  Be sensitive in handling negative comments  Evaluate substantive, ethical, methodologic, interpretative presentational dimensions  Suggest alternatives
  • 9.
     What typeof study was conducted ?  What was the setting ?  Were the steps clearly identified ?  Was there a logical flow ?
  • 10.
     Substantive &theoretical dimensions  Methodologic dimensions  Ethical dimensions  Interpretative dimensions  Presentation/stylistic dimensions
  • 11.
     Readers ofa research report need to determine whether a study was worthy in terms of the significance of the problem, the soundness of the conceptualization & appropriateness of the conceptual framework.  Normally communicated in the report’s introduction
  • 12.
     The heartof a research critique lies in the analysis of the methodologic decisions adopted.  In a quantitative study, the four major decision points to focus critical attention are Decision 1, Design :What design will yield the most unambiguous and meaningful results about the relationship between the independent and dependent variables?
  • 13.
     What extraneousvariables are to be controlled and how best can this be accomplished? DECISION 2, SAMPLE : who should participate in the study? DECISION 3, DATA COLLECTION :What method should be used to collect the data? DECISION 4, DATA ANALYSIS :What statistical analysis will provide the most appropriate tests of the research hypotheses?
  • 14.
     Need toconsider whether the right of human subjects were violated during the investigation.  If there is potential Ethical concerns, we need to consider its impact both on the scientific merit and on well being of the participants.
  • 15.
     Research reportsconclude with a Discussion, Conclusions or Implications section.  Here researcher attempt to make sense of the analysis, to consider whether the findings support or fail to support hypotheses or theory.
  • 16.
     Writing aresearch report should be clear, grammatical, concise and well organized.  Unnecessary jargon should be minimized.  Quantitative research reports are written in a more formal, impersonal fashion, using either the third person or passive voice to connote objectivity
  • 17.
     Qualitative studiesare written in a more literary style, using first or second person & active voice to connote proximity & intimacy with the data & phenomenon under study.
  • 18.
     Clear /concise  Too big / too small  Gives precise information  Research questions empirically tested?  Definitions of terms clearly described?
  • 19.
     Is thepurpose of the study presented ?  Is the significance (importance) of the problem discussed ?  Does the investigator provide a sense of what he or she is doing and why ?
  • 20.
     Is theproblem statement clear ?  Does the investigator identify key research questions and variables to be examined ?  Does the study have the potential to help solve a problem that is currently faced in clinical practice ?
  • 21.
     Does thereport tie the problem to various related research?  Is there overdependence on secondary source?  Recent literature included?  Overdependence on anecdotes/ opinion articles over empirical studies?  Paraphrased adequately? Analyzed critically?
  • 22.
     Does literaturereview follow a logical sequence leading to a critical review of supporting and conflicting prior work ?  Is the relationship of the study to previous research clear ?  Does the investigator describe gaps in the literature and support the necessity of the present study.
  • 23.
     Is arationale stated for the theoretical/ conceptual framework ?  Does the investigator clearly state the theoretical basis for hypothesis formulation ?  Does it link the problem to a theoretical / conceptual framework in a natural way?
  • 24.
     Is thehypothesis stated precisely, logically and in a form that permits it to be tested ?  Does it express a predictable relationship?  Do they flow logically?  Do they include general population of interest?
  • 25.
     Are therelevant variables and concepts clearly and operationally defined ?  Is the design appropriate for the research questions or hypotheses ?
  • 26.
     Is experimental/non experimental approaches best?  Appropriate procedures and methods of data collection described sufficiently and clearly?  Procedure for preventing contamination between treatment and control group described?  If there was more than one data collector, was the inter-rater reliability adequate ?
  • 27.
     Are thesubjects and sampling methods described ?Sample size justified?  Is the sample of sufficient size for the study, given the number of variables and design ?  Is there adequate assurance that the rights of human subjects were protected ?Response rate reported?  Are the subjects representative of the sample?Are key characteristics described?
  • 28.
     Instruments clearlyidentified and described?  Method of development of tools appropriate with regard to structure?  Are the instruments developed specifically for the study? Are the processes for its development described?
  • 29.
     Are appropriateinstruments for data collection used ?  Are reliability and validity of the instruments adequate ?  If instrument new/ adapted, if sufficient testing done?  Evidence for validity and reliability presented?
  • 30.
     Is analysisconsistent with objectives of study?  Type of analysis appropriate for type of data?  Is information unnecessarily converted?
  • 31.
     Are thestatistical tests used identified and the values reported ?  Are appropriate statistics used, according to level of measurement, sample size, sampling method, and hypotheses/ research questions?
  • 32.
     Are theresults for each hypothesis clearly and objectively presented ?  Are the figures and tables used efficiently to highlight and streamline the presentation of results?  Are results described in light of the theoretical framework and supporting literature ?
  • 33.
     All importantresults discussed?  Interpretation organized in meaningful fashion?  Does interpretation distinguish practical and statistical significance?
  • 34.
     Is itappropriate?  Are implications of findings discussed (i.e., for practice, education and research) ?  Does it include nursing implication?  Are recommendations for further research stated ?
  • 35.
     Is thestudy of sufficient quality to meet the criterion of sufficient merit ?  Does the study meet the criterion of replicability ?  Is the study of relevance to practice ?  Is the study feasible for nurses to implement ?  Does the benefits of the study outweigh the risks ?
  • 36.
     Are conclusionsbased on the results and related to the hypothesis ?  Are study limitations identified ?  Are generalizations made within the scope of the findings ?
  • 37.
     Title- ofreasonable length  Summary- abstract included  Bibliography- style & citation  pleasant to read  Grammatically correct  No complex sentences
  • 38.
     Research isthe best possible means of answering many questions, no single study can provide conclusive evidence  Evidence is accumulated through the conduct and evaluation of several studies  Reader who can do reflective and thorough critiques of research of reports play a role advancing nursing knowledge
  • 39.
     Burns N,Grove SK.The Practice of Nursing Research conduct, critique & utilization. 5 edi. W.B. Saunders Company: Philadelphia; 2005.  Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing Research Principles and Methods. 7 edi. LippincottWilliams & Wilkins company: Philadelphia; 2004.  Rose Marie Nieswiadomy. Foundations of Nursing Research. 5 edi. Dorling Kindersley Pvt. Ltd. Pearson Education: India; 2009.