Did the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the report (problem, methods, results, conclusion)?
Article Reference in APA format
Permalink to the article
***Copy and paste this grid into a new Word document. Please include the article reference and the permalink above the grid (shown above). Please submit assignment with a title page and a reference page***
Below is Box 5.2 of the textbook (pp. 106-109), Chapter 5. Use the frame to critique qualitative research articles.
| Aspect of the Report | Critiquing Questions | Answer
Yes/No |
Comment(s) |
| 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? |
||
| Research Questions | · Were research questions explicitly stated? If not, was their absence justified?
· Were the 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 or phenomenon of interest?
· Did the literature review provide a strong basis for the new study? |
||
| Conceptual Underpinnings | · Were key concepts defined conceptually?
· Was the philosophical basis, underlying tradition, conceptual framework, or ideologic 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 subject to external review by an IRB/ethics review board? · Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to participants? |
||
| Research Design and Research Tradition | · Was the identified research tradition (if any) 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 data collection, giving researchers opportunities to capitalize on early understandings? · Was there an adequate number of contacts with study participants? |
||
| Sample and Setting | · Was the group or population of interest adequately described? Were the setting and 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? · Was the sample size adequate? Was saturation achieved? |
||
| Data Collection | · Were the methods of gathering data appropriate? Were data gathered 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 an appropriate fashion? · Was a sufficient amount of data gathered? Were the data of sufficient depth and richness? |
||
| Procedures | · Were data collection and recording procedures adequately described and do they appropriately trained? | ||
| Enhancement of Trustworthiness | · Did the researchers use effective strategies to enhance the trustworthiness/integrity of the study, and was there a good description of those strategies?
· Were the methods used to enhance trustworthiness adequate? · Did the researcher document research procedures and decision processes sufficiently that findings and auditable and confirmable? · Was there evidence of researcher reflexivity? · Was there “thick description” of the context, participants, and findings, and was it at a sufficient level to support transferability? |
||
| Results
Data Analysis |
· Were the data management and data analysis methods adequately described?
· Was the data analysis strategy compatible with the research tradition and with the nature and type of data gathered? · Did the analysis yield an appropriate “product” (e.g. a theory, taxonomy, thematic pattern)? · Did the analytic procedures suggest the possibility of biases? |
||
| Findings | · Were the findings effectively summarized, with good use of excerpts and supporting arguments?
· Did the themes adequately capture the meaning of the data? Does it appear that the researcher satisfactorily conceptualized the themes or patterns in 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 ideologic 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 implication 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 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 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.
