How to Critique

It can be a little overwhelming trying to critique an article when you’re not sure where to
start, however considering the article under the following headings may be of some use:

Title of Study/Research

You may be a better judge of this after reading the article, but the title should succinctly
reflect the content of the work, stimulating reader’s interest.

Keywords

Three to six keywords that encapsulate the main topics of the research will have been
drawn from the body of the article.

Introduction

This should include:

 Evidence of a literature review that is relevant and recent, critically appraising

other works, not merely describing them
 Background information to the study, to orientate the reader to the problem
 Hypothesis or aims of the study
 Rationale for the study that justifies its need, i.e. to explore an un-investigated
gap in the literature.

Materials and Methods

Similar to a recipe, the description of materials and methods will allow others to
replicate the study elsewhere if needed. It should both contain and justify the exact
specifications of selection criteria, sample size, response rate and any statistics used. This
will demonstrate how the study is capable of achieving its aims. Things to consider in
this section are:

 What sort of sampling technique and size was used?

 What proportion of the eligible sample participated? (e.g. “553 responded to a
survey sent to 750 medical technologists”)
 Were all eligible groups sampled? (e.g. was the survey sent only in English?)
 What were the strengths and weaknesses of the study?
 Were there threats to the reliability and validity of the study and were these
controlled for?
  Were there any obvious biases?
 If a trial was undertaken, was it randomised, case controlled, blinded or double-
blinded?

At other times the barrier is harder, or even impossible to cross. Communication

difficulties arise even when a translator is available, and non-verbal messages may be
missed by the patient or even by the health professional.

Results

Results should be statistically analysed and presented in a way that the average reader
of the journal will understand. Graphs and tables should be clear and promote clarity of
the text. Consider whether:

 There were any major omissions in the results, which could indicate bias
 Percentages have been used to disguise small sample sizes
 The data generated is consistent with the data collected

Negative results are just as relevant as research that produces positive results (but as
mentioned previously may be omitted in publication due to editorial bias).

Discussion

This should show insight into the meaning and significance of the research findings. It
should not introduce any new material, but should address how the aims of the study
have been met. The discussion should use previous research work and theoretical
concepts as the context in which the new study can be interpreted. Any limitations of
the study, including bias, should be clearly presented. You will need to evaluate whether
the author has clearly interpreted the results of the study, or whether the results could
be interpreted another way.

Conclusions

These should be clearly stated and will only be valid if the study was reliable, valid and
used a representative sample size. There may also be recommendations for further
research.

References

These should be relevant to the study, be up to date, and should provide a

comprehensive list of citations within the text.
Final Thoughts
Undertaking a critique of a research article may seem challenging at first, but will help
you to evaluate whether the article has relevance to your own practice and workplace.
Reading a single article can act as a springboard into researching the topic more widely
and aids in ensuring your nursing practice remains current and is supported by existing
literature.