M.

Sc Nursing
Nursing Research and Statistics
Unit XI– Critical analysis of Research
reports and articles
Prepared By
Dr.M.Baskaran, Professor
 Objectives

Define research Critique

Enlist the purposes of research critique

Exemplify the dimensions of research critique

Describe the phases of research crtique

Critique a research study

 Introduction

The word critique is often linked with the

word criticize, which has negative connotations.

But critique takes on another meaning, which is associated with

critical thinking and appraisal and requires carefully developed
intellectual skills.

The use of critical thinking to examine a research study is an

important part of developing nursing knowledge. It enables
nurses to make informed decisions regarding the
implementation of research findings.
 Definition
• A critique of research involves a systematic, unbiased,
careful examination of all aspects of a study to judge the
merits, limitations, meaning and significance based on
previous research experience and knowledge of the topic.
-Burns, N. & Grove, S., 2005

• It is a careful, critical appraisal of the strengths and

limitations of a research report
- Denise F. Polit, Bernadette P. Hungler
 Purpose of research critique
• To assess the scientific value of the investigation
• To improve nursing practice
• To further a theoretical base
• To be suggestive of future research
• To refine the research studies
• To assist in the utilization of research findings in nursing
practice
• To improve the precision of the study instrument
 Purpose of research critique Contd…

• To gain insight into the overall congruency of the study

• To stimulate heightened interest so that new scientific
questions are generated for future research
• To evaluate the study’s utility for Evidence Based Nursing
Practice(EBP)
• To assess the study’s credibility to publish in journals &
conferences
 Guidelines in conducting research critique

• Read the entire study carefully

• Examine the organization and presentation of the research
report. A well prepared report is complete, concise, clearly
presented and logically organized.
• Examine the significance of the problem studied for nursing
practice
• Identify strengths and weakness of a study.
• Be objective and realistic in identifying the study’s strength
and weaknesses.
 Guidelines in conducting research critique Contd..

• 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.
• Provide a rationale for your critique. Include justifications for
the critique and document ideas with sources from the current
literature.
• Suggest modifications for future studies.
• Discuss the feasibility of replication of the study.
• Discuss the usefulness of the findings for practice.
 Who Critiques Nursing Research?

• Research Committee or IRB for approval

• Journal reviewer before publishing the study
• Nursing conference “Scientific Committee” before approval of
a research abstract
• Nurse/student in order to get more information or to explore
the experiences of others before conducting research
• Journal club members critique one or a group of articles
• EBP institutions or committees to appraise the research and
its impact and its applicability on clinical fields
 Elements of Research critique

METHODOLOGICAL

PRESENTATION
SUBSTANTIVE
/STYLISTIC
DIMENSIONS

ETHICAL&
INTERPRETIVE LEGAL
 Substantive and theoretical dimensions
Determine if
• the problem is relevant to Nursing - Contributing to nursing
knowledge or improving nursing practice.
• the problem is significant to nursing.
• it is enhancing nursing knowledge or just replication of some
previous study.
• if the study defines variables, cause & effect relationship or
effectiveness of specific intervention.
• if the research problem has been explained in a theoretical
context.
 Methodological dimensions
The appraisal of the methodological decisions is the most
important aspect of a critique.
Quantitative study
Research What design will yield the most unambiguous and meaningful results
design about the relationship between the independent variable and
dependent variable?
Sample Who should participate in the study? What are the characteristics of
the population? How large should the sample be, from where should
participants be recruited, and what sampling approach should be
used?
Data How should the research data to be gathered?
Collection How are the validity & reliability of the variables measured?
Data What statistical analysis will provide the most appropriate tests of the
analysis Research Hypothesis?
 Methodological dimensions Contd..

Qualitative study
Setting and What setting will yield the richest information about the phenomenon
study under study? Who should participate, and how can participants be
participants selected to enhance the study’s theoretical richness? How many
participants are needed to achieve data saturation?
Data sources What should the sources of data be, and how should data be
gathered? Should multiple sources of data be used to achieve
method triangulation?
Data How should the research data to be gathered?
Collection How are the validity & reliability of the variables measured?
Data analysis
What data analysis techniques are appropriate for the research
tradition?
Quality What types of evidence can be obtained to support the credibility,
enhancement transferability, dependability, and confirmability of the data, the
analysis, and the interpretation?
 Ethical and legal dimensions

• This dimension focusses on protection of the human subjects in a

research project.
• It explores the following:
Whether a statement in a research report addresses the human
rights issues and the protection of human subjects?
How were the subject’s rights protected?
What method was used to obtain consent?
Was enough information given without compromising the study?
Was the study approved by an Institutional Review Board?
 Interpretive dimensions

• Research report always conclude with discussion and

conclusion
• Researcher attempts to make sense of the analyses, to
consider whether the findings support or fail to support
hypotheses or theory, and to discuss what the findings imply for
nursing.
• Researcher offer appropriate implications of the research for
nursing practice, nursing theory, or nursing research and
education
 Presentation / stylistic dimension

• The writing in a research report should be clear, grammatical,

concise, and well organized.

• It should be in a simple language and well expressed

• Unnecessary jargon should be minimized

• Continuity and logical thematic development are critical to

good communication of scientific information.
 Presentation / Stylistic Dimension Contd…

• Quantitative research reports are typically written in a more

formal, impersonal fashion, using either the third person or
passive voice to connote objectivity.

• Qualitative studies are likely to be written in a more literary

style, using the first or second person and active voice to
connote proximity and intimacy with the data and the
phenomenon under study.
 Phases in Research Critique process

Phase I- Comprehension
It involves understanding the terms and concepts of the report as
well as identifies the elements of the research process.

Phase-II- Comparison
Requires knowledge of what each step of the research process
should be like The ideal is compared with the real

Phase-III- Analysis
Involves a critique of logical links connecting one study element
with another.

Phase-IV- Evaluation
Involves determining the meaning and significance of the
study by examining the links among the study process, study
findings, and previous studies .
 Do’s and Don’ts in Critique

Do’s
• Convey a sincere interest in the study you are critiquing

• Be sure to emphasize the points of excellence

• Choose clear, concise statements to communicate your

observations rather than ambiguous ones

• When pointing out a study’s weakness provide explanations that

justify your comments

• Include supportive and encouraging comments when they are

warranted
 Do’s and Don’ts in Critique Contd..

Don’ts
• Do not find fault on trivial details
• Do not ridicule or demean an investigator personally
• Do not include flattery so as to boost a researcher’s self-esteem
• Do not include recommendations on the basis of loose and
biased attitude towards a particular discipline or a particular
topic
• Do not write your critique in condescending, patronizing or
condemning language
• Do not forget that your purpose is to advise the researcher to
improve the work
Critiquing Quantitative
studies
 Contents of Research to be Critiqued

1. Researcher qualifications 12. Research design

2. Title 13. Setting
3. Abstract 14. Population and sample
4. Introduction 15. Ethical considerations
5. Purpose 16. Data collections methods
6. Problem statement 17. Data collection instruments
7. Objectives 18. Results /data analysis
8. Theoretical/conceptual framework 19. Discussion of findings
9. Hypothesis 20. Conclusion
10. Variables 21. Implications
11. Review of the literature 22. Recommendations
 Critiquing Contents of Research

1.Researcher Qualifications
• What are the researcher’s qualifications regarding research
study?
Many nursing research studies in past years were conducted by non
nurses.
Authorities in subject areas are generally more qualified
• Brief biographical sketch that will assist the reader in
evaluating the qualifications of the author or authors.
If this information is not provided, the initials after the name, such as
M.Sc or Ph.D. will inform the reader of the educational background of
the researcher
 Critiquing Contents of Research
2.Title
• Clarity & conciseness of title are major considerations
• The focus of the research should be apparent in the title
• It should reflect the population and clearly identify the major
variable(s)
• It should be reflective of the hypothesis and suggestive of the
research design
• Extraneous words like “A study of….””The relationship
between…,” or “The effect of…” should be avoided
• It is very important that the title contain the key word which
help in searching process for the literature
 Critiquing Contents of Research
2.Title

Example: “Correlates of successful Breastfeeding” is a title from

a sample study in IMAGE: Journal of Nursing scholarship.

Critque: The title is brief but explicit and conveys to the reader
what the study will be about. The term “correlate” conveys that
the study will be a correlational study with more than one variable
measured.The sample is implied by the term breast feeding. The
key word is “Breast feeding”
 Critiquing Contents of Research

3.Abstract

• Abstracts are typically 100 to 200 words in length

• Placed at the beginning of the study
• The researcher should present the essential component of the
research study in the abstract
Hypothesis(es) or research question(s)
Methods
Description of subjects
Major findings
 3.Critique of Abstract - Example
ABSTRACT:
Newborn is the foundation of human life. Establishment of spontaneous breathing after birth is most crucial for the
survival
• R of a newborn baby. If independent respiration is not established it leads to fetal asphyxia arising the need
of active resuscitation to manage it. Many babies in developing world do not receive resuscitative care which
leads to high neonatal mortality which is preventable. A quasi-experimental research, pre and post test without
control group design with experimental approach was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of Video assisted
teaching programme on the knowledge of nurses on neonatal resuscitation. Data were collected from 248 nurses
selected by cluster sampling technique in PHCs of Salem district through closed ended questionnaire and
observational checklist. Data were analysed by descriptive and inferential statistics. The overall pre-test mean
knowledge score was 28.13±7.55 (42.61%) whereas in post-test it was 57.71±3.94 (87.44%) revealing 44.83%
enhancement of knowledge score. Area wise assessment shows during post test highest mean KS (1.89±0.32)
which is 94.56% of the maximum score was for the area “Initial assessment” where the difference in mean
percentage was lowest (31.66%) might be due to highest pre test mean % (62.9%). Highly significant difference
was found between the total knowledge scores of pre and post test and area wise score values of pre and post test
(P<0.01) revealing effectiveness of Video assisted teaching programme. No significant association was found
between post test knowledge scores of nurses when compared to demographic variables (P>0.05).
KEYWORDS: Effectiveness, Video assisted teaching programme, Neonatal resuscitation,Fetal Asphyxia, Nurses.

Reference: Tamizharasi,K. Effectiveness of Video assisted teaching programme (VATP) on

Neonatal resuscitation for the Nurses working in rural Salem, Tamil Nadu. AJNER, Vol.2(1)
 3.Critique of Abstract - Example

Critque:
• Abstract is Structured
• Written at the beginning of the article
• Objectives not mentioned.
• Components such as background, methods, major findings
are included.
• Keywords are mentioned.
• Total words: 243
 Critiquing Contents of Research

4.Introduction

• Should catch interest of reader & set stage for presentation of

research study

• Should contain brief exploration of study area

Background information on the problem

Significance of this problem to nursing is presented

Study purpose may be included in this section

 Critiquing Contents of Research

5.Purpose

• Reason(s) for undertaking study should have been clearly

formulated before research started

• Broad purpose of study may be made more specific in the

form of objectives or goals
 Critiquing Contents of Research
5. Purpose
Example:
The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of
the relationship of a pregnant women’s motivation to breast feed
and her knowledge about breast feeding
Critque:
The research purpose is clear in stating what the study hopes to
accomplish. It has a definitive statement and identifies the study
population. The purpose of study suggests that a potential
relationship exists between the variables of
motivation,knowledge of breast feeding and success in breast
feeding.
 Critiquing Contents of Research

6. Statement of the problem

• Does the statement clearly identify that a problem exists, there is a
need for a research study and finding a solution is imperative?
• Is it stated in declarative or interrogative form?
• Is it clear, concise and researchable?
• Is it significant to Nursing?
• Does it contain population, major variable(s) and place of study?
• Was this study feasible to conduct in terms of money commitment;
the researcher’s expertise; availability of subjects, facility, equipment;
ethical considerations?
 Critque of Statement of the problem

Example:
Assess the Effectiveness of Video assisted teaching programme
(VATP) on Neonatal resuscitation for the Nurses working in rural
Salem, Tamil Nadu.

Critque:
The problem is clearly and concisely stated. It is stated in
declarative form with a mention of major variables. The study
population are Nurses in the rural area of Salem which is explicit.
It is significant to Nursing with a focus on reducing the neonatal
mortality.
 Critiquing Contents of Research

7. Objectives
• Is it formally stated?
• Is it measurable and achievable?
• Is it clearly and concisely stated?
• Is it logically linked to purpose?
• Is it linked to concepts and relationships from the framework?
 Critque of Objectives
Example:
Objectives
1. To assess the
a. knowledge of nurses regarding neonatal resuscitation prior to implementation of
VATP
b. effectiveness of VATP regarding neonatal resuscitation on knowledge of nurses.
2. To compare the effectiveness of VATP regarding neonatal resuscitation with
demographic variables of nurses.
3. To find out the association between post test knowledge scores with demographic
variables of nurses.

Critque:
Objectives are formally stated and in measurable terms. They
are clear, concise and linked to the research purpose of
assessing the knowledge of Nurses on neonatal resuscitation
 Critiquing Contents of Research

8. Theoretical/Conceptual Framework

• Is the study framework identified? Is a particular theory or model

identified as a framework for the study?
• Is the framework explicitly expressed or extracted from the
literature review?
• Does the framework describe and define the concepts of interest
or major features of the theory/ model so that readers can
understand the conceptual basis of the study?
• Does the framework present the relationships among the
concepts?
 Critiquing Contents of Research
8. Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
Contd..

• If the proposition from a theory is to be tested, is the proposition

clearly identified and linked to the study hypotheses?
• Is the theory or model used as the basis for generating hypothesis
that were tested or is it used as an organizational or interpretive
framework? Was this appropriate?
• Is the theory/ model appropriate for the research problem? Would
a different framework have been fitting?
• Does it Link the concepts in the framework, with the variables in
the study?
 Critiquing Contents of Research

9. Hypothesis
Are they:
• Properly worded and stated objectively without value laden
words?
• Stating a predictive relationship between variables?
• Stated in such a way that they are testable?
• Directional or non directional/ research or statistical? Is the
direction clearly stated? Are they causal, associative or simplex
versus complex?
• Clearly and concisely expressed with variables and study
population?
 Critiquing Contents of Research

9.Hypothesis Contd..

Are they:
• Logically linked to the research problem and purpose?
• Used to direct the conduct of the study?
• Absent? If so is their absence justified? Are statistical tests used
in analyzing the data despite the absence of stated hypothesis?
• Derived from a theory or previous research? Is there a justifiable
basis for the predictions?
• Specific to one relationship so that each hypothesis can be
either supported or not supported?
 Critique of Hypotheses
Example:
Hypotheses
H01 : There is no significant difference between pre and post test knowledge
scores of Nurses on Neonatal Resuscitation at P<0.05 level.
H02 : There is no significant association between post test knowledge scores
of Nurses on Neonatal Resuscitation and their demographic variables at
P<0.05 level.

Critique:
Hypotheses are stated objectively and provide the predictive
relationship between the variables. They are directional in nature
and can be tested with their level of significance stated . The
study population is clearly mentioned and they are specific to one
relationship
 Critiquing Contents of Research

10. Variables
• Do the variables reflect the concepts identified in the framework?
• Are the variables clearly defined (conceptually and operationally)
based on previous research and or theories?
• Is the conceptual definition of a variable consistent with the
operational definition? Do the theoretical definitions correspond to
the conceptual definitions?
• Are the variables that are manipulate or measured in the study
consistent with the variables identified in the purpose or the
objectives, hypothesis?
 Critiquing Contents of Research

10. Variables
• Are the major variables or concepts identified and defined
(conceptually and operationally)? Identify and define the
appropriate variables included in the study: Independent variables,
Dependent variables, Research variables or concepts
• What attribute or demographic variables are examined in the
study?
• Were the extraneous variables identified and controlled as
necessary in the study?
• Are there uncontrolled extraneous variables that may have
influenced the findings? Is the potential impact of these variables
 Critiquing Contents of Research

11. Review of Literature

• Are all relevant concepts and variables included in the review?
• Are relevant previous studies (including, from other disciplines)
identified and described?
• Are relevant theories and models identified and described?
• Are the references current? Examine the number of sources in
the last five and ten years in the reference list.
• Is the review thorough? Does it identify/uncover the gaps or
inconsistencies in literature?
• Is the review up-to-date?
 Critiquing Contents of Research

11. Review of Literature Contd…

• Is it based on primary sources? Are secondary sources cited?

• Is the review well organized, flow logically, written concisely? Is
the development of ideas clear to demonstrate the progressive
development of ideas through previous research?
• Is there use of appropriate language?
• Does the literature review provide a rationale and direction for
the study?
• Are both conceptual and data based literature included?
 Critiquing Contents of Research

12. Research design

• Is the research design clearly addressed? Is the design employed
appropriate?
• What would be strongest design for the research question? How
does this compare to the design actually used?
• Does the design used seem to flow from the proposed research
problem, theoretical framework, literature review and the
hypothesis?
• What are the threats to internal and external validity?
 Critiquing Contents of Research

12. Research design Contd…

• What are the controls for the threats of internal and external
validity?
• Does the study include a treatment or intervention? If so is the
treatment is clearly defined conceptually and operationally?
• Does the study report, who implemented the treatment? If more
than one person were they trained to ensure consistency in the
delivery of the treatment?
• Was any control or comparison group intervention described?
 Critiquing Contents of Research

12. Research design Contd…

• If experimental study, what specific experimental (or quasi) design

was used? Were randomization procedures adequately
explained? Is there adequate justification for failure to
randomize subjects to treatment conditions?
• If the study has more than one group, how were the subjects
assigned to groups?
• What type of comparisons are specified in the design
(before-after, between groups)? Do these comparisons adequately
illuminate the relationship between the independent and
dependent variables?
 Critiquing Contents of Research

13. Setting

• Does the candidate mention the setting?

• Is it suitable for the study?
• Is their any bias in selecting the setting?
• Does the setting help in generalization?
 Critiquing Contents of Research

14. Population & Sample

• Is the target population to which the findings will be generalized

defined?
• Was the population identified and described? Was the sample
described in sufficient detail?
• Was the best possible sampling design was used to enhance
sample’s representativeness? Were sample biases minimized?
What was the possibility of type II error?
• Is the sampling method adequate to produce a sample that is
representative of the study population? Is the sample
representative of accessible and target population?
 Critiquing Contents of Research

14. Population & Sample Contd..

• Was the sample size adequate? Identify the sample size.

Indicate if a power analysis was conducted to determine sample
size
• What type of sampling plan was used? What alternative sampling
plan have been preferable? Was it the one that could be expected
to yield a representative sample?
• Are key characteristics of the sample described (female or male
percentage, mean age etc.)
• Identify the sample mortality or attrition from the study. If so are
justifications given?
 Critiquing Contents of Research
15. Ethical considerations
• Are the rights of human subjects protected?
• Was the study approved and monitored by an institutional review
board?
• Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits
to participants?
• Was any undue coercion or undue influence used to recruit
participants? Did they have the right to refuse to participate or to
withdraw without penalty?
• Were the subjects informed about the purpose and nature of the
study? Were adequate steps taken to safeguard the privacy of
the participants?
 Critiquing Contents of Research
16. Data collection
• Did the report provide adequate information about data collectors
and data collection procedure? Is the data collection process
clearly described?
• Do the data collected address the research objectives, questions
or hypotheses?
• Who collected the data?
• Was the training of data collectors described?
• Where and under what circumstances were data gathered? Was
the setting for data collection appropriate?
 Critiquing Contents of Research
17. Instruments

• Are all of the measurement strategies /instruments identified and

described? Identify the type of each measurement strategy (Likert,
visual analogue, physiological measurement, questionnaire,
interview, observation). Is there rationale for their selection given?
• Is the method used appropriate to the problem being studied?
• Report the reliability and validity of each instrument or scale
from previous studies and the current study.
• Was the set of data collection instruments adequately pretested?
 Critiquing Contents of Research
18. Data Analysis
• Are data analysis procedures clearly described? What statistical
analyses are included in the research report?
• Do data analyses address each objective, Question or
hypothesis?
• Are the results presented in an understandable way?
• Are tables and figures used to synthesize and emphasize certain
findings? Do the tables/ graphs figures used agree with the text
and extend it or do they merely repeat it?
• Were the tables, graphs, pictures clear, with a good title,
carefully labeled headings.
• Were appropriate descriptive statistics used?
 Critiquing Contents of Research
18. Data Analysis Contd..

• Are the results for each of the hypotheses presented

appropriately?
• Are the results clearly and completely stated?
• Was the level of significance or alpha identified?
• Are significant and nonsignificant findings explained? If the
results were nonsignificant, was the sample size sufficient to
detect significant differences?
• Are the analyses interpreted appropriately?
 Critiquing Contents of Research
19. Discussion

• Are the present study findings compared with other research

studies discussed in the literature review ?
• Has the author made it clear that findings either supported or
failed to support the framework of the study?
• Are both statistical and clinical significance discussed?
• Are the study limitations identified and discussed?
 Critiquing Contents of Research
20. Conclusion

• Conclusions answer the “so what?” questions that might be

proposed to researcher at the end of a study
• Study conclusions are author’s attempt to make generalizations
based on the study findings
• Personal experiences and opinions should not influence
conclusions
• Findings are strictly data bound
• Researcher has some freedom to go beyond data when
presenting the conclusions
 Critiquing Contents of Research

21. Implications

• Do the researchers discuss the study’s implications for clinical

practice, nursing education, nursing administration, nursing
theory or make specific recommendations?
• What implications do the findings have for nursing practice?
• Are they reasonable and complete?
 Critiquing Contents of Research

22. Recommendations

• Is the recommendation realistic and meaningful?

• Is it cost effective, time effective and efficient?
Critiquing Qualitative
studies
 Critiquing Qualitative studies

Those who critique qualitative studies need

• context flexibility,
• skills in inductive reasoning,
• skills in theory analysis, and the
• capacity to transform ideas across levels of abstraction.
 Standards for Critiquing Qualitative studies

The following standards are proposed for critique of

qualitative studies:
(a) descriptive vividness;
(b) methodological congruence;
(c) analytic preciseness;
(d) theoretical connectedness; and
(e) heuristic relevance.
 Standards for Critiquing Qualitative
studies
a. Descriptive vividness
• Description of the site and subjects, the experience of collecting
the data, and the thinking of the researcher during the process
need to be presented so clearly that the reader has the sense of
personally experiencing the event.

• Because one of the assumptions of qualitative research is that

all data are context specific, the evaluator of a study must
understand the context of that study.
 Standards for Critiquing Qualitative studies
b. Methodological congruence
• Reviewer must have knowledge of philosophy and methodological
approach used by the researcher.
• Four dimensions in methodological congruence:
Rigor in documentation-The reviewer examines if the researcher clearly
and concisely presents study elements.
Procedural rigor- Researcher makes clear the steps taken to ensure data
were accurately recorded and that the data obtained are representative of
data as a whole
Ethical rigor - Consent is obtained from subjects and documented. Report
must indicate that the researcher ensured rights of subjects were
protected.
Auditability- The rigorous development of a decision trail. To achieve this,
the researcher must report all decisions involved in transformation of data
to theoretical schema.
 Standards for Critiquing Qualitative
studies
c. Analytic preciseness

• Requires researcher to make intense efforts to identify and

record decision-making processes through which data
transformations are made
• Premature patterning may occur before the researcher can
logically fit all of the data within the emerging schema. The
consequence may be a poor fit between data and theoretical
schema. It is critical to test the schema by rechecking the fit
between the schema and the original data.
 Standards for Critiquing Qualitative
studies
d. Theoretical connectedness

• Requires that theoretical schema developed from the study be:

Clearly expressed and Logically consistent
• Reflective of the data Compatible with knowledge base of
nursing
 Standards for Critiquing Qualitative
studies
e. Heuristic relevance

• Reflects reader’s capacity

to recognize phenomenon described in the study,
its theoretical significance,
applicability to nursing practice situations, and
influence on future research
 Critiquing Qualitative problem statement

Is there a clear statement of the aims of the research?

• Qualitative research needs to answer questions set by the
researcher (there is no hypothesis). The intended aim(s) of the
research should therefore be stated and the questions the
research seeks to address should be identified.
 Critiquing Qualitative designs

• Is a research tradition for a qualitative study identified?

• Is the research question congruent with a qualitative approach
and with the specific research tradition?
• How well is the research design described?
• Are design decisions explained and justified?
• Is the design appropriate for the research question?
• Does the design lend itself to a thorough intensive examination
of the phenomenon of interest?
• Did the researcher spend a sufficient amount of time in
collecting the research data?
 Critiquing Qualitative setting & sampling

• Is the setting or context adequately described?

• Is it appropriate for the research question?
• Are the sample selection procedures clearly delineated?
• What type of sampling strategy was used?
• How were the participants recruited? Was the sample size
adequate for the qualitative tradition of the study?
• Was the sampling approach appropriate?
 Critiquing unstructured data collection methods

• Did the researcher use the best method of capturing study

phenomena?
• Were interviews tape recorded & transcribed?
• Were high quality responses(Eg: in terms of privacy, efforts to
put respondents at eas etc.) obtained for self reports?
• Who collected the data? Were they adequately prepared for the
task?
• If observational methods were used , did the reports adequately
describe what the observations entailed? What did the
researcher actually observe? In what type of setting? How long
did the observation occur?
 Critiquing Qualitative analyses & Interpretations

• Were the data analysis approach appropriate for the research

design?
• Were manual methods used to index and organise the data or was a
computer program used?
• What major themes or processes emerged? Was a metaphor used
to communicate ey elements of the analysis?
• Was the context of the phenomenon adequately described?
• Did the analysis yield a meaningful & insightful picture of the
phenomenon under study?
• Does the researcher integrate his thought processes from field notes
and reflexive journal?
 Conclusion

• Critiquing research report is a systematic method of critically

analysing a research project. It highlights the strengths and
weaknesses of a research study and also recommends
alternatives for future replications. Thus the research critique
gives room for the authenticity of the information and to analyse
the credibility of the findings and to weigh the evidence base in
terms of practicality, objectivity, utilization, application and
replication possibility.
 References

• Nieswiadomy, Rose Marie. 2012. Foundations of Nursing

Research . Sixth edition.
• Polit, Denise F & Cheryl, Tatano Beck.(2012). Nursing
Research, Ninth edition.
• Talbot, A Laura. Principles and practice of Nursing research. St.
Louis: Mosby 1995.
• Polit H, Beck C T. Nursing research. 8th ed. New Delhi:
Williams and Wilkins; 2008.
• Burns N, Grove S K. Understanding nursing research. 4th ed.
New Delhi: Elsevier; 2007.