Next Page 1, 2

Outline

• Introduction
• Definition and meaning of critique
• Steps in conducting research critique
• Phases of research critique 
• Critiquing qualitative research
• Critiquing quantitative research study
• Guidelines for a quantitative   study critique
• Conclusion
• Reference

Next Page 1, 2

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence based practice, is the use of the best clinical evidence in making patient care decisions and such evidence typically comes from research conducted by nurses and other health care professionals. Research is systematic inquiry that uses disciplined methods to answer questions or solve problems.  Nursing research has experienced remarkable growth in the past three decades, providing nurses with an increasingly sound evidence base from which to practice. Yet many questions endure and much remains to be done to incorporate research based evidence into nursing practice. The authenticity of the research findings, need to be assessed by careful critical analysis as to broaden the understanding, determine evidence for use in practice and provide a background for conducting further study.

II. Definition of critique                                                            

1. A research critique is a careful appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the study
2. An intellectual research critique is a careful, complete examination of a study to judge its strengths, weaknesses, logical links, meaning and significance
3. The process of objectivity and critically evaluating a research report’s content for scientific merit and application to practice, theory or education.

III. Steps in conducting research critique                          

1. Read and critique the entire study. A research critique involves examining the quality of all steps of the research process
2. Examine the organization and presentation of the research report. A well prepared report is complete, concise, clearly presented and logically organized. It does not involve excessive jargon that is difficult for students and practicing nurses to read. The reference need to be complete and presented in a consistent manner.
3. Examine the significance of the problem studied for nursing practice. The focus of nursing studies needs to be on the significant practice problems if a sound knowledge base is to be developed for the profession.
4. Identify strengths and weakness of a study. All studies have strengths and weaknesses, so attention must be given to all aspects of the study.
5. Be objective and realistic in identifying the study’s strength and weaknesses. Be balanced in the critique. Try not to be overly critical in identifying a study’s weaknesses or overly flattering in identifying strengths
6. Provide specific examples of the strengths and weaknesses of a study. Examples provide evidence for your critique of the strengths and weaknesses of a study.
7. Provide a rationale for your critique. Include justifications for the critique and document ideas with sources from the current literature. This strengthens the quality of the critique and documents the use of critical thinking skills.
8. Suggest modifications for future studies. Modifications in future studies will increase the strengths and decrease the weaknesses identified in the present study.
9. Discuss the feasibility of replication of the study. Is the study presented in enough detail to be replicated?
10. Discuss the usefulness of the findings for practice. The findings from the study need to be linked to the findings of previous studies. All those findings need to be examined for use in clinical practice.   

IV. Phases of research critique                                                  BACK TO TOP

• Phases of research critique are described briefly here:

A. QUALITATIVE RESEARCH                                                        

When critiquing them, one must examine differences between the qualitative approaches like grounded theory, phenomenology, or ethnography. Five standards have been developed to evaluate qualitative studies:

1. Descriptive vividness:

The study purpose, significance and interpretations must be articulated in such detail and richness that the reader has the sense of personally experiencing the event and clearly understand the significance of the findings. The threats to descriptive vividness include:

1. Failure to include essential descriptive information
2. Lack of clarity in description
3. Inadequate interpretative/analytic skill (what is most essential, characteristic and defining about a given phenomenon

Guidelines:

• 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?

2. Methodological Congruence:

It requires knowledge of the methodological approach the researchers used and whether that approach was consistent with the philosophical basis of the study. Methodological excellence has four dimensions

a. Adequate documentation of the participants: Requires a detailed description of the study participants, rationale for why and how the participants were selected and a description of the context and location where the study was conducted. Threats include:

• Failure to describe the participants in detail
• Failure to provide a rationale for selecting the participants
• Failure to describe the context or location of the study so that others can determine if the findings are applicable to their setting.

b. Careful attention to the procedural approach:  How careful the researcher is in applying selected procedures for the study? To the extent possible the researcher must clearly state the steps that were taken to ensure that data were accurately recorded and the data obtained are representative of the data as whole. Examine the description of assumptions, the data collection process, role of researcher for threats to the procedural approach. Threats include

• Failure to articulate the assumptions associated with the research
• Failure to establish trust with the participants, open dialogue and a conversational approach to data collection.
• Failure to ask appropriate questions that address the participant’s beliefs, experiences, values or perceptions.
• Failure to adequately describe the data collection process
• Failure to spend adequate time gathering data or to conduct multiple interviews
• Failure to describe the data collection procedures used by multiple data collectors
• Failure to use appropriate process for selecting and gaining access to participants
• Failure to detail the role of the researcher during the interview process
• Failure to describe the qualitative expertise of the researchers

Guidelines:

1. Did the researcher identify the philosophical or theoretical base of the study?
2. Were the assumptions underlying the study articulated? Were the assumptions and data collection procedures congruent?
3. Was adequate trust established with the participants? Was there an open dialogue with a conversational approach to data collection?
4. Were research questions articulated? Did the researcher ask questions that explore participant’s experiences, beliefs, values or perceptions?
5. Was the data collection process adequately described?
6. Did the researcher spend sufficient time with participants gathering data? Did the researcher conduct multiple interviews?
7. Was the approach of multiple data collectors similar?
8. Was the method of selecting and gaining access to the study participants reasonable?
9. Was the role of the researcher during the interview process described? Were the researcher’s qualitative credentials and expertise described?  

c. Adherence to ethical standards: requires recognition and discussion by the researcher of the ethical implications related to the study. The report must indicate that the researcher took action to ensure that the rights of the participants were protected during the study. Examine the data gathering process and identify potential threats which include:

• Failure to inform participants of their rights
• Failure to obtain informed consent from the participants
• Failure to protect participant rights

d. Auditability: The research report needs to be sufficiently detailed to allow a second researcher with a similar background and philosophical approach, using the original data and the decision trail, to arrive at conclusions similar to those of the original researcher. Threats:

• Failure of the researcher to record the nature of the decisions made, the data on which they are based and the decision trail, rules for arriving at conclusions. Other researchers with a similar background and philosophical background are not able to arrive at similar conclusions after applying the decision rules to the data.

• Failure to include enough participant quotes to support the findings. The interpretative statements developed do not correspond with the findings.

• Failure to provide quotes that are sufficiently rich or detailed to allow judgments to be made. This flaw also has been described as not achieving saturation or redundancy in the data

• Failure to provide specific examples of the phenomenon being investigated.

Guidelines:

1. Was the decision trial used in arriving at conclusions described in adequate detail? Can the findings be linked with the data?
2. Were enough participant quotes included to support the findings?
3. Were the data sufficiently rich to support the conclusions? Were the findings validated by data? Did the participants describe specific examples of the phenomenon being investigated?

3. Analytical and interpretative preciseness:

The analytical process involves a series of interpretations and transformations during which concrete data are transformed across several levels of abstraction. The outcome imparts meaning to the phenomenon under study. It requires that the researcher involve others in the interpretative process and present a meaningful picture of the phenomenon under study. Threats include:

• Failure to present the findings in a way that yields a meaningful picture of the phenomenon under study.
• Failure to return the findings to participants or experts in the area or to readers who determine if the results are consistent with common meanings and understandings.
• Failure to involve two or more researchers in data analysis or to describe how disagreements about data analysis were handled.

4. Philosophical or theoretical connectedness:

Requires that the findings developed from the study be clearly expressed, logically consistent and compatible with the knowledge base of nursing. Study assumptions, methodological procedures and interpretative/analytic approach must be consistent with the philosophical or theoretical basis of the study. Threats are:

• Failure to link data to nursing practice
• Failure to identify a philosophical or theoretical basis for the study
• Failure to cite references for the philosophical or theoretical approach used
• Failure to link the philosophical or theoretical basis of the study with the study assumptions, data collection procedures and analytical and interpretative approach.

Guidelines:

1. Was a clear connection made between the data and nursing practice?
2. Did the researcher identify the philosophical or theoretical basis for the study? Were citations provided for the philosophical or theoretical approach used?
3. Was the theoretical and philosophical 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?

5. Heuristic relevance:

It is reflected in the reader’s ability to recognize the phenomenon described in the study, its applicability to nursing practice and its influence on future research. The dimensions include:

a. Intuitive recognition: Readers immediately recognize the phenomenon, its connection to their personal experience and its relationship to nursing practice. Threat includes failure to present the findings in a way in which the reader can recognize them as being consistent with common meanings and experiences. Guidelines are:

• Can the reader recognize the phenomenon described in the study?
• Are the findings consistent with the common meanings or experiences?

b. Relationship to the existing body of knowledge: Similarities between the current knowledge base and the study findings add strength to the findings. The researcher needs to explore reasons for differences. Examine the degree to which the authors compared and contrasted the study findings with the results of other researcher’s work. Threats include:

• Failure to examine existing body of knowledge
• Failure to compare and contrast the study findings with those of other studies.
• Failure to describe the lacunae or omissions in current understandings that would account for unique findings.

c. Applicability to nursing practice, research and education: In the discussion section examine implications of study findings and suggestions for future research. Threats include:

• Failure to link study findings to nursing practice, research or education
• Failure to emphasize how the findings extended what was previously reported in the literature
• Failure to identify implications of the study for related cases
• Failure to summarize suggestions for future research

Next Page 1, 2>