Research Critique Framework: Qualitative

APA Format

1) Minimum 2 full pages and full grid (No word count per page)- Follow the 3 x 3 rule: minimum three paragraphs per page

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on

Just from $13/Page

Order Essay

2)¨******APA norms

All paragraphs must be narrative and cited in the text- each paragraph

Bulleted responses are not accepted

Don’t write in the first person

Don’t copy and paste the questions.

Answer the question objectively, do not make introductions to your answers, answer it when you start the paragraph

3)****************************** It will be verified by Turnitin (Identify the percentage of exact match of writing with any other resource on the internet and academic sources, including universities and data banks)

********************************It will be verified by SafeAssign (Identify the percentage of similarity of writing with any other resource on the internet and academic sources, including universities and data banks)

4) Minimum 5 references (APA format) per part not older than 5 years (Journals, books) (No websites)

All references must be consistent with the topic-purpose-focus of the parts. Different references are not allowed.

Include the chosen article in the reference page.

5) Identify your answer with the numbers, according to the question. Start your answer on the same line, not the next

Example:

Q 1. Nursing is XXXXX

Q 2. Health is XXXX

__________________________________________________________________________________

Article:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350020274_Exploring_factors_influencing_the_retention_of_nurses_in_a_religious_hospital_in_Taiwan_a_cross-sectional_quantitative_study

1. Make an introductory paragraph (1/2 page): Include level 1 and 2 headings

2. Purpose statement

3. Analysis of the article (1 page)

4. Make a conclusion (1/2 page)

5 . Copy and paste the appropriate research critique grid (See file 1)

6. Complete each section of the research critique grid.

a. In “Analysis” section of the research critique grid should be specific.

i. Use bullet points for this section

ii. Support each yes/no analysis with comments.

4. Critique the article and include the strengths and weaknesses.

Include the chosen article in the reference page.

Research Critique Framework: Qualitative

Aspect of the Report	Critiquing Questions	Answer Yes/No	Comment(s)
Title	Is the title a good one, suggesting the phenomena and the group or community understudy?
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 qualitative approach appropriate?
Research Questions	Were research questions explicitly stated? If not, was their absence justified? Were questions consistent with the study’s philosophical basis, underlying tradition, or ideological orientation?
Literature Review	Did the report adequately summarize the existing body of knowledge related to the problem? Did the literature review provide a strong basis for the new study?
Conceptual/Theoretical Underpinnings	Were key concepts adequately defined conceptually? Was the philosophical basis, underlying tradition, conceptual framework, r ideological orientation made explicit and was it appropriate for the problem?
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 identified research tradition congruent with the methods used to collect and analyze data? Was an adequate amount of time spent with study participants? Did the design unfold during the data collection, giving researchers opportunities to capitalize on early understandings? Was there an adequate number of contacts with study participants? minimized?
Sample and Setting	Was the population adequately identified? Was the sample described in sufficient detail? Was the approach used to recruit participants or gain access to the site productive and appropriate? Was the best possible method of sampling used to enhance information richness and address the needs of the study?
Data Collection	Were the methods of data gathering appropriate? Were data collected through two or more methods to achieve triangulation? Did the researcher ask the right questions or make the right observations, and were they recorded in the appropriate fashion? Was a sufficient amount of data gathered?
Procedures	Were data collection and recording procedures adequately described and do they appear appropriate? Were data collected in a manner that minimized bias? Were the staff who collected data appropriated trained?
Enhancement of trustworthiness	Did the researchers use effective strategies to enhance the trustworthiness and integrity of the study? Were the methods for trustworthiness adequate? Did the researcher document research procedures and decision processes sufficiently that findings are auditable and confirmable?
Results Data Analysis	Were the data management and data analysis methods adequately described? Did the analysis yield an appropriate “product” (a theory, taxonomy, thematic pattern)? Did the analytic procedures suggest the possibility of bias?
Findings	Were the findings effectively summarized, with good use of excerpts and supporting arguments? Did the themes adequately capture the meaning of the data? Did the analysis yield an insightful, provocative, authentic, and meaningful picture of the phenomenon under investigation?
Theoretical integration	Were the themes or patterns logically connected to each other to form a convincing and integrated whole? Were figures, maps, or models used effectively to summarize conceptualizations? If a conceptual framework or ideological orientation guided the study, were the themes or patterns linked to it in a cogent manner?
Discussion Interpretation of the findings	Were the findings interpreted within an appropriate social or cultural context? Were major findings interpreted and discussed within the context of prior studies? Were the interpretations consistent with the study’s limitations?
Implications/recommendations	Did the researchers discuss the implications of the study for clinical practice or further research-and were those implications reasonable and complete?
General Issues Presentation	Was the report well-written, organized, and sufficiently detailed for critical analysis? Was the description of the methods, findings, and interpretations sufficiently rich and vivid?
Researcher credibility	Do the researchers’ clinical, substantive, or methodologic qualifications and experience enhance confidence in the findings and their interpretation?
Summary Assessment	Do the study findings appear to be trustworthy-do you 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 Qualitative Research Report,” by D. F. Polit and C. T. Beck, 2017, Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice (10th ed.), pp. 106-109.

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.