Nursing
Research Report – Qualitative Research // Basic Critique Form
Format (10%)
Title page, APA format with CUC date and instructor addition
Structure
Neatly typewritten
Correct spelling and grammar
Correct sentence structure
Evidence of logical topic development
APA citations, headings, margins, spacing, font
Length – 3 pages, not including references
Content (90%)
Summary of article. [ 10%]
Examine the organization and presentation of the report
Remember, this is a critique of the research article, and the summary is a critique summary, not a summation of the author’s work.
Complete, concise, clearly presented, and logically organized
Does not include excessive jargon that is difficult for students and practicing nurses to read
References are complete, current and consistent in format
Authors have the educational and clinical credentials to conduct the study
Identification of report elements. [ 25% ]
Evaluate objectively, then explain how these elements from the chosen study meet (or do not meet) the expected definition and purpose of each element
Descriptive Vividness
Documentation of Participants
Methodological Congruence
Ethical Standards
Auditability
Analytical and Interpretive Preciseness
Philosophical / Theoretical Connectedness
Heuristic Relevance
Intuitive Recognition
Relationship to existing Body of Knowledge
Strengths and weaknesses of article. [ 35% ]
In this comparison and analysis phase of the critique:
Consider how the research elements relate to one another, particularly in reference to the stated research design. Here is a suggestion list of elements to consider. Reference your Research text also, as this is not an exhaustive list.
is the research objective format at a comparable level to the stated design
do the operational tools measure the concept
is the sampling method and plan style appropriate for the chosen research design
has the author related the theoretical framework to concept variables, and outcomes
is the problem heuristic to nursing, does the theoretical basis related to nursing concerns
are limitations (both types) and biases addressed – can you identify possible concerns to generalizability
validity and reliability of instruments / data : of outcomes due to uncontrolled threats
does the author support the study rigor expected for the stated design
are study variables – demographics, setting – controlled sufficiently for chosen research design
Specify examples
Justify your criticisms of these examples
Suggest research method alternatives
Implications. [ 20% ]
Explore implications of the study for –
Professional clinical practice
Further research (higher level, replication for changes in elements)
Use the following grid to guide your reading and analysis of the 8 points above:
STANDARDS/EVALUATION CRITERIA
Descriptive Vividness
Was the significance of the study adequately described?
Was the purpose of the study clearly described?
Were the interpretations presented in a descriptive way that illuminated more than the quotes did?
Documentation of Participants
Were the study participants described in detail?
Was the selection of participants reasonable? Was a rationale provided for participant selection?
3. Were the context and location of the study described with sufficient detail to determine if the findings are applicable to other settings?
Methodological Congruence
Were the assumptions underlying the study articulated? Were the assumptions and data collection procedures congruent?
Was adequate trust established with the participants? Was there an open dialog and conversational approach to data collection?
Were research questions articulated? Did the researcher ask questions that explore participants’ experiences, beliefs, values, or perceptions?
Was the data collection process adequately described?
Did the researcher spend sufficient time with participants gathering data? Did the researcher conduct multiple interviews?
Was the approach of multiple data collectors similar?
Was the method of selecting and gaining access to the study participants reasonable?
Was the role of the researcher during the interview process described? Were qualitative credentials and expertise of the researcher(s) described?
Ethical Standards
Were the participants informed of their rights?
Was informed consent obtained?
Were participants’ rights protected?
Auditability
Was the decision trail used in arriving at conclusions described in adequate detail? Can the findings be linked with the data?
Were enough participant quotes included to support the findings?
3. Were the data sufficiently rich to support the conclusions? Did the participants describe specific examples of the phenomenon being investigated?
Analytical and Interpretative Preciseness
Do the categories, themes, or findings present a whole picture? Did the findings yield a meaningful picture of the phenomenon under study?
Were the findings returned to participants or experts in the area?
Did two or more researchers participate in data analysis? How were disagreements about data analysis handled?
Philosophical/Theoretical Connectedness
Was a clear connection made between the data and nursing practice?
Did the researcher identify the philosophical or theoretical basis for the study? Were citations provided for the philosophical or theoretical approach used?
Was the philosophical or theoretical basis of the study consistent with the study assumptions, data collection process, and analysis and interpretative methods used? Were citations provided for the philosophical or theoretical approach used?
Heuristic Relevance:
Intuitive Recognition
Can the reader recognize the phenomenon described in the study?
2. Are the findings consistent with common meanings or experiences?
Relationship to Existing Body of Knowledge
Did the researcher adequately examine the existing body of knowledge?
Did the researcher compare and contrast the findings with those of other studies?
Did the researcher describe lacunae in current understandings that would account for unique findings?
Threats to Nursing a) Practice, b) Research, or c) Education
Are the findings relevant to nursing practice, research, or education?
Did the reader learn more than had been previously reported in the literature?
Do the findings have implications for related cases?
Are suggestions for further study identified?
